Journal des débats 1982-déc-10 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), who yesterday sent me a letter dated November 18 regarding flood risk areas in Metropolitan Toronto. He also sent a package that contained a document called A New Approach to an Old Problem and a couple of maps on flood risk.

I presume the urgency with which it was sent by Purolator to my constituency office was because of the danger of impending flooding of the bluffs in Scarborough. I just wanted to thank him for the special notice of sending me this thing by Purolator.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

DEMONSTRATIONS IN PUBLIC GALLERIES

Mr. Bradley: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: It refers to a recurring problem, and I would be interested in some brief comments from you on how this problem is being dealt with.

Last night once again there were demonstrations in the public gallery. Yesterday afternoon there were demonstrations of a sort in the public gallery. I suppose the thing to do at one time was to demonstrate on the steps of the Ontario Legislature, the steps of city hall and various other places where one could be heard, seen and make known a point of view.

I have not been in this Legislature as long as most people on the benches here, I suppose, but it has really been a phenomenon of about the last year when we have had almost continuous demonstrations occurring in the public galleries of this Legislature. I really wonder how this matter is being addressed.

I know we have stood from time to time to ask you about it, and I do not pretend there is an easy solution by any means. But it seems to me we have to resolve this matter before something really unfortunate happens. We do not want to get into the details of these things, because when you do it sometimes suggests to certain people what might be done. But all of us could let our imaginations go and picture what could occur if we are not going to find some way of solving this problem.

Last night I thought the three people who were in the chair during the evening dealt with it in as fine a manner as they could. They attempted to isolate those who were using the public galleries for a demonstration from those who were there simply to observe the proceedings. It was the former who were asked to leave.

Mr. Speaker, I know when we have people from various schools here you have a difficult time saying we have to clear the entire gallery because of a few people. I supppose the standing committee on procedural affairs will be looking at this, that certain other committees of the House might be discussing this and that you are probably mulling over in your own mind some possible way of handling this problem.

But I rise again simply because I am extremely concerned about this place. We are on our worst behaviour some days; I am the first to admit that, and I participate in that kind of bad behaviour from time to time. But we are the elected representatives and I suppose we can get away with it. But I think a real problem arises when we get that behaviour in the public gallery. It affects the debates to a certain extent and it concerns certain members that the demonstrations might take a different turn.

We do not want to exclude people completely, but I think it is a matter we must address, because it is becoming almost a daily occurrence as opposed to the exception. Now if you want to get on television, you stand up, open up your jacket and there is a sign. And while these people have some real grievances -- and we cannot say there are not real grievances -- it is the manner in which the public galleries of this House are being used that has to be of concern, I think, to all members.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. It is a very difficult matter to deal with. As all members know, it is a responsibility that I carry, and I have tried to deal with it as it arises. It is very difficult to know before the House opens what is going to happen.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Before making a brief statement I would just say I think all of us share the same concerns of the member for St. Catharines and know the very difficult judgements you are called upon to make, Mr. Speaker.

However it is not as recent as the member feels. Some of us who have been here for a shade longer can recall when great debates were taking place in the university community about student representation on boards of governors. I think the leader of the New Democratic Party may remember some of this activity. There were certain demonstrations in the gallery then. I can recall the former mayor of Hamilton, as a matter of fact, and I think I recall some students from the college of art. It was during the throne speech on one occasion when a demonstrator actually came on to the floor of the Legislature.

So the member may feel it is a fairly recent situation, but there have been others. For you, Mr. Speaker, it is always a very difficult judgement and determination to make, and I am sure we all share this concern at the same time as not having an instant or simple answer to how it should be handled.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, 34 years ago today the nations assembled at the United Nations took a major step forward in the history of international affairs and in the advancement of the dignity of the human race. On that day, the anniversary of which is being widely celebrated today as Human Rights Day, the General Assembly of the United Nations proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

That declaration establishes a critically important set of international ideals and standards. It reflects the best that is present in men and women when, inspired by decency, hope and understanding, they have the vision to see and proclaim that beneath surface differences all human beings are equal in dignity and rights.

Since 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has inspired a number of specific international human rights agreements by which Ontario has consented to be bound. Ontario can be proud that in this manner we, along with our fellow Canadians, have helped demonstrate our country's commitment to strengthening support for equal and fair treatment around the world.

10:10 a.m.

In doing so, we have acknowledged some of the benefits which we as a province have received from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Our first Human Rights Code, which was proclaimed in force 20 years ago, drew not only its inspiration but also its preamble from the declaration. Our new Human Rights Code, which we proclaimed in force on June 15 of this year, continues to draw upon the universal declaration for its basic principles, while at the same time creating a stronger, expanded code which can itself be properly held out as a model for jurisdictions around the world.

In rising to mark Human Rights Day and to pay tribute to the universal declaration, I wish to emphasize in particular this province's commitment to the principles of multiculturalism and to the promotion of good race relations.

In recognition of this commitment, the government of Ontario has recently adopted and released a policy statement on race relations. In it we have set out our belief in the goodwill of the vast majority of this province's residents and our determination to inspire their continued efforts towards the achievement of a society in which all are equal in dignity and rights. At the same time, the statement makes clear our commitment to protecting those who suffer hurts and wrongs because of their race.

The principles set out in the statement, copies of which have been distributed to members, have long guided public policy in this province. But they have not previously been collected together in a document which can reassure those who suffer because of race, inspire those who seek to end that suffering and deter those who would inflict it. The policy statement will soon appear in a great many public institutions of this province, where it will further these goals, all the while bearing potent witness to Ontario's commitment to equal rights and freedoms for all.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to add some remarks on this occasion of Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because there is another anniversary which is celebrated at the same time. That is the 22nd anniversary of the declaration of the granting --

Mr. Speaker: I must call the honourable member to order. You do not have a point of order that I can identify, or a point of privilege as such.

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) wants to say anything on this occasion to join with the Premier, but with the permission of the House, I would like to associate our party with the commemoration of Human Rights Day to say how much we appreciate the fact that the Premier himself has indicated the importance of this day for the province.

It is an extremely important statement by the Premier. While we may disagree from time to time as to what all the provisions of the Human Rights Code should be, and while we in our party do not regard the Human Rights Code as a closed book but rather see it as something which will always be in need of reform, change and expansion, we do recognize the importance of the work of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. We do recognize the importance of the protection that is provided today by the Human Rights Code to all the people of the province.

I also want to congratulate the Premier. I have not had an opportunity to see the statement on race relations and on the very real problems and tensions that, naturally, are exacerbated in times of economic difficulty by the fact that Ontario has become quite quickly a multiracial as well as a multicultural society. But I do want again, if I may -- in a completely nonpartisan way -- to congratulate the Premier on having introduced this statement.

We may disagree on some of the some of the emphasis; we may disagree on some of the implementation; we may feel, as we have shown from time to time, that we would like to see some aspects of employment standards law, labour relations law and other laws strengthened so that equality in race relations does become a reality. As someone who, as was pointed out many times in York South, went to the United Nations school -- and not always to my advantage was this pointed out by members of other parties -- I do appreciate the commemoration of this day in this Legislature. I think it is very important to all the people of our province.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate our party with the statement of the Premier, too.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PENSION REFORM

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my first question is particularly relevant to the statement. I will ask it of the Premier because I think it could do something beyond rhetoric to strike at what I consider to be an injustice in this province. It would assist in our nonpartisan fight together for better and more complete human rights in this province and in this country.

The question relates to pensions. The Premier is no doubt aware the federal green paper was tabled yesterday in Ottawa. He must also be aware that one of its recommendations is that the government of Canada will vigorously pursue implementation of the child-rearing dropout provision with the government of Ontario. The Premier is no doubt aware that Ontario is the only hold-out in that regard and is using its veto to prevent women in this country, not just in this province, from achieving justice under the pension legislation.

How long will Ontario continue to exercise that veto to penalize women who drop out of the work force for a few years to raise their children?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have not had delivered to me the document that was released yesterday in Ottawa. I have read very hurriedly certain press comments.

I read some comments from other members on the other side of the House in the nation's capital where they reflected on the rather innocuous nature of the report. I would not prejudge it in that fashion because I have not read it nor studied it. I do not sense the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to describe it as an innocuous report.

I am delighted to see the Leader of the Opposition has such instant and ready access to these federal documents. I do not think I have received a copy as yet.

Mr. Kerrio: Pierre is going to deliver yours personally when you get together.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is right -- he will when we get together. I think the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), who might wish to reply to it in a more direct sense, has indicated the position of this province. This matter is one of concern to all of us.

It was either yesterday or the day before -- it must have been the day before because yesterday I was at the inaugural meeting of the great region of Peel -- that the Treasurer dealt with a similar question.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer did not deal with it and that is why we are trying to deal with it with the Premier. That is exactly the reason I am asking about it today. He knows this is the only province objecting to this. He knows British Columbia dropped its veto. He knows almost every royal commission, every inquiry, every person who has ever looked at the pension question has asked why Ontario is holding out on this one small part of it.

I am not asking for complete pension reform today. I am asking the Premier to show his good faith. All it would take is the matter of a phone call. Ottawa wants to change but this government has the veto. Will the Premier not put some substance into his fine words today on Human Rights Day, and bring human rights to those people who have been punished for years, exclusively by his behaviour? Why does he not show that good faith?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Once again, I think the Treasurer did effectively deal with this question. I do not think it is quite accurate to say that Ontario alone is holding this up.

Mr. Peterson: Absolutely accurate.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, I think the Treasurer indicated to the Leader of the Opposition it was not sort of a theological matter for us at all; it was a question of relating this to other possible changes in the whole area of pensions. It should not be considered a package -- I do not like that terminology -- but in conjunction with other suggested alterations. I think the Treasurer made it quite clear we were trying to approach this in a reasonable and responsible fashion.

It is a complex matter. The honourable member takes out one single aspect of it, which we acknowledge is important, but the intent of the Treasurer and of this government was to provide some leadership along with the other provinces, dealing, we hope in a co-operative fashion, with the government of Canada on the whole question of pension reform. I think that is what I heard the Treasurer say to the member earlier this week.

10:20 a.m.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Premier will realize, I am sure, that the green paper is being referred to a special parliamentary task force, which is expected to take up to a year to report. It is expected that consultation with the provinces will be yet another year. That is two years in this global reform package the Premier talks about and the Treasurer talked about a couple of days ago.

Does the Premier not think there is a very real danger of forgetting about some very simple and basic reforms, such as allowing women to drop out from the plan for a time in order to take care of their children and then go back into the plan without being penalized? Does he not think there is a danger this will be lost sight of in this miasma, this two-year, oozingly long process that is now being embarked on by Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on this Friday morning I will not be provocative and suggest other oozingly long things that have occurred in the past period of time.

Mr. Rae: It hasn't been two years, though.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, sitting over here it felt like two years.

I think the Treasurer -- and once again I was paying attention, but I cannot refer specifically to what he said -- indicated a very genuine sympathy for the item the Leader of the Opposition has raised. Having been present for discussions with other Premiers, my guess is that at the meeting of Ministers of Finance and Treasurers in the next few days this subject will be raised.

A fair amount of homework has been done on the green paper. I say this in all modesty, not for myself but for the Treasurer, that a lot of it was on the initiative of the Treasurer of this province in conjunction with our colleagues in the rest of Canada.

My own view is that certain changes could be made, not covering the entire area encompassed by the green paper but perhaps encompassing this item. And I think there may be some others that really would not require a year of study by the committee of the House and then a year of discussion with the provinces. I think there are some areas that could move far more expeditiously than that. I sense from the Treasurer that this item -- not the item relating to the Leader of the Opposition's question but the question of pensions -- will be discussed by the Ministers of Finance and Treasurers when they meet.

Mr. Peterson: I think we recognize the complexity of this issue and the difficulty of trying to get unanimity across this country. It is one of the most complex issues we are facing as a nation. I recognize that.

But I am asking the Premier to separate this particular issue. I am saying it is not complex; I am saying that he is alone in holding out; I am saying it should not be tied to any other pension reforms, and it would be very easy to do tomorrow.

The Premier has been asked about this since 1977. He has always said: "We are thinking about it"; "We are considering it one way or the other"; "We are not really against it; we are not really for it." He has never really committed himself.

Why does he not take that one small step forward and say: "This is our declaration of good faith. We are interested in pension reform, and it is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness"?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will not comment on the lighting of candles. I light a candle for the honourable member on occasion in great expectation. Some days I am encouraged. some days I am disappointed. No, I do not really light candles; I just think about it.

I did listen very carefully to what the Treasurer said on Tuesday or Wednesday. I sense from his observations that he not only was not unsympathetic but was in fact sympathetic to this aspect of pension reform. I think the Treasurer went on to say he felt that consideration of this along with the other provinces and the government of Canada, perhaps with some other items -- we are not going to deal with the total area of pension reform in the next two weeks or six months. I think all of us acknowledge that. There are perhaps three or four items but do not ask me to speculate on what they might be. Obviously this would be one of those that could be considered in a much shorter time frame.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier has been sympathetic for about four years now. His concern is about like that of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch).

MORTGAGE PRACTICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister is aware of the discussion we had yesterday in the House about a building located at 49 Yonge Street which is the head office of Greymac Mortgage and Greymac Trust Co. Subsequent to that I have learned some additional facts I want to bring to the minister's attention and then ask him a question.

To recap from yesterday, he is aware that building was bought in 1978 for $600,000 and was bid up through a series of transactions to $4.15 million in 1981 in terms of value. Is the minister aware that on May 6, 1982, Greymac Mortgage sold that same building to a numbered company for $5.5 million? The sole director of the numbered company is one Victor Prousky, a director of Crown Trust. In doing this, Greymac Mortgage took a $3.5-million mortgage at 15 per cent.

Then on July 28, 1982, less than three months later, that same building was sold for $7.5 million to another numbered company, one of whose directors is the same Victor Prousky. They assumed a first mortgage for $3.5 million, back to Greymac Mortgage, and took out another mortgage to Greymac Trust for $3 million. Originally it was a mortgage back to the vendor company but eventually was signed to Greymac Trust.

What we have now is a building presumably worth $7.5 million with mortgages on it of $6.5 million. The annual interest is S825,000. That building is leased by the numbered company back to Greymac Mortgage and Greymac Trust Co. for the identical amount of money, $825,000, so no real money is exchanging hands. Does the minister think this is a normal business practice?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition and I exchanged observations on the transaction. At that time I indicated to him, and I mean this quite sincerely. that undoubtedly it is of interest to the Legislature, to myself and to the public to learn of specific examples of transactions in which the same principles brought to our attention in the Cadillac Fairview transactions are exemplified.

If he expects me to respond to each instance and to comment on each transaction he brings to the attention of this Legislature, when I already have a special examiner looking into a number of trust companies and a mortgage company with respect to the conduct of their business, with particular reference to the issuing of mortgages and the limitations imposed under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act with respect to mortgages, I have to say it is impossible. It is not appropriate when there already is an examiner looking into the conduct of the businesses involved in those transactions from the mortgage point of view.

Mr. Peterson: It is only because we brought these things to the minister's attention that we are getting any action out of his ministry at all. That is the reality.

Does it not concern the minister that these assets appear to have been bid up in a series of transactions that are going to require him to move with a considerable amount of dispatch, given the regulatory authority he has through the various emanations of his ministry and the fact that a number of these transactions have transpired since there have been inspections by various branches of his ministry at various times? Is he not worried that this thing may be getting ahead of him?

10:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I accept as genuine the member's concern about transactions we are seeing that escalate property values in ways that I am sure confound the public and us. I hope he will agree that is the very reason we have taken this matter as seriously as we have and have left our options open with respect to other steps that may or may not need to be taken, depending upon the results of the examination we now have under way.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that the minister now is saying the inquiry of the special examiner will extend to all the transactions and all the business of Greymac Trust and Seaway Trust. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Rae: Then, if it is true that the inquiry is extending to the conduct of all the business of these companies, can the minister tell us how long he thinks this inquiry is going to take with respect to Cadillac Fairview?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Again, I would not want the leader of the third party to endeavour to leave the impression that there is something new added.

From day one, I have said very clearly what the terms of reference were for the Morrison examination. I have clearly said, in line with section 152, that the terms of reference are to make a special examination and to inquire generally into the conduct of the business. That does not mean that each day I will drop in and ask, "Have you looked at so and so?" It means the examiner is inquiring into the conduct of their business and into any specifics that he deems appropriate.

I hope my friend will agree that this is the appropriate step for the government to take at this time.

Mr. Peterson: With great respect, that is not what transpired at the beginning of this inquiry. Even the Premier (Mr. Davis) said the object of the Morrison inquiry is to look into the valuation of some of the attendant properties with respect to the Cadillac Fairview sale. The issues we are talking about are outside of those particular sales; we are widening the scope of the inquiry. Whether or not the minister wants to admit it is immaterial, because he is doing it by his actions.

But there is an immediate problem I want to ask about. The immediate problem is the valuation of the capital assets with respect to the mortgaging provisions of up to 75 per cent under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. Does the minister not think that requires an immediate response, to look at those things to make sure there are no violations of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act in this province?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Again, I do not think my friend should try to mislead the public or anyone else as to the purpose of the investigation. Clearly it is in response to the terms and conditions that are placed upon trust companies under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act and particularly in relation to their role in the provision of mortgages.

But there has been absolutely no change in the directions given to that commission from the day it was started. Indeed, the order setting out the terms of reference was dated back in November. So there has been no change in my directions to the Morrison inquiry. I like to think that we want the same thing in this particular issue as the honourable member, and if we do not, then I think my friend may be on the wrong wicket.

Mr. Kerrio: You are using the public, and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Who is?

Mr. Kerrio: You are, and you know it -- and all those trust companies.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the member for Niagara Falls and the minister want to carry on a private conversation, I suggest that they do it outside the chamber, please.

PENSION REFORM

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Treasurer concerns pensions, it concerns the answers he gave the other day and it concerns the lack of response of this government -- not to the green paper on the question of pension reform and the transformation of private plans and of the Quebec and Canada pension plans, which are quite separate questions that now clearly have been deep-sixed by the federal government; the question I am asking him has to do with something that is entirely within the jurisdiction of the provincial government, entirely a provincial question and entirely within his responsibility and the responsibility of the cabinet.

It has to do with the guaranteed annual income system question and the income maintenance question. Given that pension reform clearly has been put on the back burner with respect to the general reform of the system, does the Treasurer not think it is now important and right for him and the cabinet to respond to the very immediate income needs of those who now are over 65, those single elderly who now are receiving a little more than 52 per cent of what is going to couples? Does he not think that is an immediate poverty problem? There is nothing holding him up. He cannot blame the feds. Does he not think he himself should move in that area right now?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it shows how little my colleague really understands about the process when he keeps saying that is entirely within my jurisdiction, that it is not something I can blame on the feds, that it is not something they should be involved in.

I do not know how much time the honourable member has spent on the green paper. Does he have a copy of it yet? Does he have a copy in his party?

Mr. Rae: Yes. Upstairs.

Hon. F. S. Miller: He has a copy. Have any members of his party read it today?

Mr. Speaker: Answer the question, please.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not think the member has read it; that is what I am trying to point out. I do not think he has read it because the first recommendation is that the situation of low-income single pensioners will be improved by the federal government.

Mr. Rae: In Alberta, the single maximum provincial supplement is $95. That is practically twice what is paid by the Ontario government. In the Yukon it is $100 monthly, and in the Northwest Territories it is $75 monthly.

There is nothing holding back the provincial government other than its own tight-fistedness with respect to the problem of poverty. That is the only thing holding the government hack.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: My question is, there is nothing holding the government back; why does it not act now?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think the member, by his very postscript, indicated he made a statement, not a question.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Treasurer whether he agrees with the letter that was written by the Community and Social Services critic for the New Democratic Party, who said in a letter to municipal councils that the welfare system is going to bankrupt us.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I could not hear the last part of the question.

Ms. Copps: Does the minister agree with the letter that was written by Richard Johnston to municipal councils all over Ontario, saying that the family benefits allowance, Gains and the welfare system were going to bankrupt this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No.

Interjections.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: Now that I have the attention of the House, I am not surprised by the tactics of the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps). It is something we are not surprised about at all. I will just say that that is not what was in the letter; she knows that very well. If she wishes to read the letter to the House, she may do so. I never did suggest that.

Interject ions.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

10:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Read us the letter.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have the letter here.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the honour- able member resume his seat, please? I do not want to sound sanctimonious; however, if the member will refer to the standing orders, he will see that this is not allowed. It is not a point of order, I must rule immediately.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You let the princess of innuendo get away with everything, eh? Not one iota of fact.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Bellwoods with the final supplementary.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer and arises out of his most recent answer in this exchange. We are perfectly well aware that improved benefits for the poor elderly are part of the green paper package which my leader has said the federal Liberals have deep-sixed and sent into exile for the next two years.

I know the Treasurer is relieved that expansion of the Canada pension plan has been shelved. The Leader of the Opposition, who is opposed to expansion of CPP benefits, is also relieved by the deep-sixing.

I want to ask the simple question for the fifth or sixth time since it has been raised. Is the Treasurer going to wait for the full two years before he adjusts the Gains single rates in Ontario? Or is he going to continue to use federal inaction and discombobulation as an excuse to keep many tens of thousands of single pensioners in a state of poverty?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, there have been parallel efforts going on in Canada. Because the federal government through Mme Bègin was making a set of comments about major changes in the pension program, it was obviously very difficult for the provinces to bring forward any set of recommendations until we knew at least where the federal government was starting from.

However, rather than wait for that to happen, Ontario, before I became Treasurer -- and that is more than five years ago -- set up a royal commission. The honourable member knows the royal commission carried out a study and made a set of recommendations, and he knows Ontario formulated a position from that.

Ontario then went to the other nine provinces, including Quebec, and asked that at least we get our act together internally so we would have a unified position once the green paper came out. That has happened. Mind, two governments have changed in that period of time. There has been an exchange of a Conservative government for an NDP government in Manitoba and an NDP government for a Conservative government in Saskatchewan. It is a fair switch, I suppose. In any case, we are not sure of those two provinces. We are reasonably sure of the others.

We have seen a very much modified federal position brought forward. The member has heard the federal Minister of Finance say, "Why bring one forward at a time like this?" Well, one of the reasons is that we have to take some steps, and we know it will take some time, to be ready to get rid of not only the discrepancies in the present program but also the basic flaw so often alluded to by the leader of the Liberal Party when he was my critic; that is, how does one pay for all of it?

In all the discussions today, it has been conveniently forgotten that the major complaint I was getting from the menber's party a couple of years ago was how we pay for it. I have always said from the very beginning that how we can pay for it is a very critical part of a pension program. I have to suggest that we must work on that. I have no desire to be one of those ministers who gets temporary political glory from giving away something that bankrupts a future government.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Because of the exchange, I am obliged to correct the record and make sure there is no misunderstanding because of the interjections.

There are two points I have made. First, any change in the child-rearing drop-out provision will not cost the province anything; indeed, the price tag for the country is very small. Second, I have criticized the government for borrowing from pension plans in the past. It has recognized that, of course. We know this province owes billions and billions of dollars to pension plans and to the Canada pension plan in particular. The members of the government party criticize prostitution while living off the avails of it. That is exactly what is happening. I just do not want them to put up with any of this --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

CONVERSION OF RENTAL UNITS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It concerns the conversion of a group of apartments, under the ownership of a firm called the Toronto Apartment Building Co. Ltd., into apartment hotels. Clause 4(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act, as the minister will know, exempts from rent review "transient living accommodation" provided in a hotel.

The buildings I am concerned about are at 3950 Lawrence Avenue East, 15 Orton Park and 1050 Markham Road. At 1050 Markham Road, for example, about 80 of 210 units have been converted from apartments to apartment hotels with a dramatic change in the nature of the tenancy and the nature of the rent. There is some evidence of real pressure being put on the tenants to get them out of the building one at a time so that this conversion can take place. I ask the minister to investigate this matter.

Does he not believe that this kind of conversion represents a subversion of the purposes of the Landlord and Tenant Act, which are to protect security of tenure and to protect tenants? Does he not agree that this could be a subversion of the act?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects of the problem. First, there is the Landlord and Tenant Act, which, as the leader of the third party knows, does not come under my ministry. Second, there is the issue of conversion of apartments to some other purpose. We had some discussions about this with the chairman of the Residential Tenancy Commission in committee. Two members of the New Democratic Party were there. We went into it in some detail.

Certainly I think the commission takes its obligations very seriously with respect to making certain that any purported conversion is a real change in the nature of the operation of a building. It is not to be tolerated if it is seen to be a subversion of the act.

I certainly will be pleased to request the commission to look at these matters, if it is not already doing so. There are some cases before it, but I do not know whether they involve those particular buildings.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister tell us exactly what powers the Residential Tenancy Commission has to stop this kind of conversion and this kind of destruction of the purposes of rent review? Can he specify what guidelines exist? In a sense, it means a landlord can get out from under the jurisdiction of the commission. The minister will notice that indeed there may be a problem there. I am not quite sure whether the commission has the powers it needs to deal with this problem.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It was my impression in committee and during discussions with the chairman that the commission did have the very real power to look at such conversions. Certainly I will be glad to speak to the chairman about it and get his views on it.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) has flatly refused to give municipalities the power they have asked for under his acts to deal with the problem of converting affordable rental accommodation to other uses, and since the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has already made two attempts under two different acts to plug various loopholes, when can we expect some comprehensive legislation from this government so that this type of conversion does not go on over and over again, as it has done for the past few years?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Etobicoke is trying to be fair about the issue. He knows full well that when an issue came up in another community with respect to the conversion of an apartment building into something other than that, I did introduce an amendment to the Securities Act in an endeavour to plug that so-called loophole. I also indicated this issue of conversions to other types of use was a matter that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and I would have to discuss, and we will be doing it.

10:50 a.m.

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the first minister. I want him to clarify some confusion that has arisen as a result of an interview he gave to the Canadian Press earlier this week.

My question has to do with whether the Premier personally saw the notorious letter authored by Morley A. Rosenberg, QC, dated June 18, 1982, prior to his appointment to the Ontario Municipal Board, about which letter the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) indicated in the standing committee on administration of justice earlier this week: "Obviously it would not have enhanced his," namely, Mr. Rosenberg's, "position," and "I don't think the Premier was aware of the letter."

Can the Premier indicate whether he saw the letter and what were the circumstances prior to and leading up to the appointment of Mr. Rosenberg in September this year?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot really relate the circumstances. I thought I made it quite clear to the young lady from the Canadian Press that if I were not aware, I would never say so. I would never hide behind the fact that I said I was not aware. In reality, I would be aware. I made it quite clear that I would never use that as an excuse in any event.

It is also fair to state that on recommendations of this nature to cabinet, letters that come in from a number of sources seeking appointments, etc., are never brought to cabinet in terms of the process. But I want to make it abundantly clear, if it did not appear that way in the Canadian Press -- and I thought I had stated it -- that from my standpoint, I would never take the position that I had not seen that letter.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North with a supplementary.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, we are left with no other conclusion but that which leads us to the fact the Premier did in reality see the notorious letter of the plaintiff-supplicant, Mr. Morley Rosenberg. Will the Premier not agree that it remains wholly inappropriate for him to walk not too many days hence into the halls of justice nominating this self-confessed dissembler to a position where over the coming months and years he will dispense justice to the rest of the community?

Will the Premier not agree that notwithstanding whatever arrangements were entered into by whomsoever, it is just not good enough for the people of Ontario and it is simply not only not going to assist the Attorney General or anyone else on either side of House who wants to construct the most qualitative and credible administration of justice that is possible but also that we will be seen to be doing so?

Upon reflecting in that connection, does he not think the time has come to withdraw that nomination and, if some watertight agreement were entered into by men of goodwill and common understanding, to reassign Mr. Rosenberg to some other assignment outside of the administration of justice?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I make two points, which I believe I made at the time when this was initially raised. To the best of my knowledge, there never was a commitment to Mr. Rosenberg to go to the provincial court bench; I am totally satisfied of that. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind. The honourable member can accept that or not. I sometimes regret that the member for Renfrew North perhaps perceives something that is not there and I know I will not persuade him to change his mind.

The decision, and it is a very simple decision, is a question of judgement. The government has determined -- and I accept the responsibility as head of government; I say to the member for Renfrew North that I was not prepared to have what had been to my knowledge, and I have met Mr. Rosenberg on two or three occasions at the most, I was not prepared to see his career, his experience and his ability -- and I sensed at the meeting when the Attorney General was presenting his estimates that some members opposite fully appreciated the fact that Mr. Rosenberg had the qualifications to go to the Ontario Municipal Board.

I sensed there was some agreement on that; so the very simple decision for government is: Do you penalize an individual, a man who has committed a good part of his adult life to public service, a person who is respected at the bar, which I assume to be the case because I have never heard to the contrary? Do you penalize a gentleman who is recommended -- and I am not interjecting this to be provocative -- by the former leader of the New Democratic Party for the first time for a Queen's Counsel; I think recommended or supported by a friend of the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt)? Do we say to that individual, because of one error in judgement -- and no one is quarrelling with that error in judgement on his part -- do we say as a government, "Mr. Rosenberg, your future in terms of the law or in service on the Ontario Municipal Board is precluded from that"?

The simple judgement was that very real mistake or error in judgement did not, in my view, put me in a position where I was going to say to that individual, "You will not have an opportunity to serve." The member can read whatever motivation into that he wishes. I only say to him, very simplistically, there is no motivation; there was no commitment to appoint him to the bench. But in my judgement and that of the government, it was not the kind of thing we would say to Mr. Rosenberg: "You have been judged unfit; your public service is ignored; your capacity at the bar is irrelevant."

ALLIED CHEMICAL DISPUTE

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour; it deals with the strike at Allied Chemical in Amherstburg. Is the minister aware of the strike and, if he is, is he aware that this company, in an effort to break the union, is helicoptering in not only supplies but also scabs?

Is the minister also aware that the company spent approximately $500,000 to prepare for this strike and to battle and destroy the union? Does he not agree that this is another example that demonstrates the need in Ontario for legislation that outlaws scabs in legal strikes?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, that matter was brought to my attention. I was already aware of it, but it was brought to my attention a number of days ago by the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), and he expressed the same concerns that the honourable member is expressing today. The matter has been looked into and there are options open to the unions; that is, to take the matter to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. That is what we have advised them to do.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, is the minister giving any consideration to legislation that would prevent this kind of activity, which is certainly going to have ramifications in terms of any future relationship in that company? In other words, can we expect any look at the use of strikebreakers in a situation like this?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, we are studying a brief that was presented to us by the United Steelworkers in conjunction with the Ontario Federation of Labour in respect to strikebreaking. We are looking at that with considerable interest, but I am not in a position to say what action, if any, will be taken.

11 a.m.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, my friend the member for Essex South raised the matter with him, as the minister pointed out. Does the minister not believe the time has come for his ministry to deal with this in a more affirmative way to come up with some new actions and initiatives to prevent the kind of problem that has broken out again at Allied Chemical?

Even if the union should go to the board and take action there, when these disputes eventually end there is a lingering bitterness between the two sides that may never go away. Does he not believe it is time he put some legislation in place that will not only protect one side or the other during a strike, but will protect both sides and society in general from the kind of lingering bitterness I believe has caused considerable harm to labour relations in the province?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I feel quite strongly that our mediation services are not just called into play during a disagreement on a collective agreement. We have mediation services that have proved to be very successful in addressing the problem of lingering bitterness the member is talking about. There are many success stories in that respect.

CONTAMINATED WATER IN SCHOOL

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was asked a question by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) pertaining to a situation that arose recently at Colchester North Central Public School which is under the jurisdiction of the Essex County Board of Education. The problem of surface water seepage occurred on or about November 25 and the school authorities were not aware of the problem until early Friday morning, November 26.

The children in the school were advised immediately not to drink the water and within two hours potable drinking water had been brought in from the municipality for all the children. The school was not closed, because as soon as the problem was recognized good drinking water was supplied.

There was a very high rate of absenteeism on those two days, but some of those who were ill had not consumed any of the water which came from the well. An additional complication on the two days was a very heavy application of liquid manure by spraying by the school's next-door neighbour on his property. This method of application caused such a strong odour some children had gone home sick because of it.

The medical officer of health for the area, Dr. Jones, says he was misquoted on the issue and denies saying there was a proven connection between the well seepage and the incidence of illness.

The well has now been declared safe and the apparent cause of the problem has been corrected. All other school wells have been subsequently checked and water quality is tested, as most of the members know, monthly by the health unit and more often by the board's maintenance personnel.

In summary, the school was not closed and direct communication with the parents was not made, because as soon as the seepage problem was identified the children were denied access to the tap water and within a short time potable water was available. The school authorities acted quickly to avoid the cause of the problem and, therefore, it was not necessary to close the school.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, on November 25, 92 students and staff were sick and on the following day an additional 62. Is it not obvious to the minister that at that point, with over 150 students and staff ill, the school should have been closed until the exact cause of the problem was determined by the medical officer of health? It had not been determined at that point.

Does the minister not admit there was a serious problem of communication if the parents and staff did not know it was the drinking water until the story appeared in the Windsor Star in the middle of this week?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is my understanding the staff was very much aware of the problem with the drinking water as soon as it was discovered, which was on November 26. It was perhaps unfortunate the board did not see fit to notify the parents of the cause, of the difficulties that had arisen and of the action which had been taken.

PROJECT CANADA

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday as well the member for Kitchener --

Mr. Speaker: Waterloo North.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) asked about an application form for Project Canada which had been mailed to schools and had been received later than the date the form was to be completed. I should tell the honourable members that Project Canada is a project in which the special projects branch of the ministry is very much involved.

The process of preparation of the application forms was begun in July 1982 by the special projects branch. All procedures within the Ministry of Education were completed by September 22. Because the project has to be described in a brochure in which the application form is included, it was sent outside the ministry for printing. The printed copies of the brochure arrived back on November 26, with the dates which had been specified in September printed in them. They were immediately mailed out without the dates having been changed.

I should like all honourable members to know that those 54,000 copies of the brochure which were mailed do specify the date of November30 for the receipt of applications. However, we are very much aware of the difficulty and will accept applications because of the delay which has been caused in this process. They will be processed as they arrive.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, regarding the case the member for Waterloo North brought to the minister's attention, I am aware of the specific case because it happened to involve someone in my riding. That individual has provided me with several instances where this has happened, where this material has arrived too late to be acted upon in a reasonable time.

Would the minister be prepared to review her methods of disseminating information to the various schools in Ontario so they can take advantage of what are, on many occasions, some very good programs? This is not the first time it has happened. There are other instances about which I will give her specifics. The problem is it has happened more than once and, in my view, often.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, since the honourable member has failed to bring to my attention any item other than that raised by the member for Waterloo North, I have some difficulty in understanding his complaint. If he feels we have been negligent in the prompt delivery of materials that have time limits, then I would like to know the instances. If there is a problem, I will most certainly look into it. However, this one is a very real problem and those application forms will be accepted as they are received.

KOZAK TREATMENT PROGRAM

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) and I

have been waiting half an hour for the minister to resume his seat so I could ask it. I know he must be some place, out in the front, on the side or in the back. Could you get him to come in, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: If the minister is not in his seat, you cannot very well ask him a question.

Mr. Ruprecht: I will ask the question and I hope the minister will listen while he is -- oh, he is in the back. I see the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Perhaps I could ask her to answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Place your question, please.

Mr. Ruprecht: In response to an inquiry from a patient suffering from epidermolysis bullosa, the Minister of Health has indicated that negotiations regarding the work of Pavel Kozak in Canada have resumed. To indicate to the minister how much support the public is willing to give in this move to come to some kind of satisfactory agreement, I was instructed by the Kozak committee to present to the minister petitions signed by over 9,000 people, and there are more to come. I would like to present these petitions to the minister if I could get them taken over there.

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

11:10 a.m.

Mr. Ruprecht: The public is most anxious to know just what stage these negotiations have reached and when we can expect Mr. Kozak to work, in whatever capacity -- and not necessarily in the capacity of having his own clinic; I want to make that absolutely clear -- in Ontario.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I will take the honourable member's question under advisement.

Mr. Ruprecht: I did not understand what the minister said. Could she repeat that, please?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I said I would take the question under advisement.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, this is a great indication of just where we are in Ontario with respect to health care.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Ruprecht: Let me also indicate to the House while I ask my question --

Mr. Speaker: I would rather you asked the question.

Mr. Ruprecht: Yes. I will ask the question. I have many affidavits from many of the patients who are supposed to be treated adequately, as the Minister of Health has indicated, in Toronto in three hospitals. The problem is -- through a question -- that none of these people --

Mr. Speaker: "Is the minister aware...?"

Mr. Ruprecht: -- who has signed these affidavits has indicated that there is adequate health care in these hospitals to treat these kinds of skin diseases.

I want to know why there is such general reluctance, which one can liken to pulling teeth, by this ministry to sit down with Mr. Kozak himself when he is in town. Why is it not possible for the minister himself, or any one of his agents through his ministry, to sit down with Mr. Kozak or his representatives? Finally, I would like to know why even the ministry's solicitor, who is not even employed by the ministry but just hired, is not even willing to discuss this issue with Mr. Kozak's solicitor.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I assure the honourable member that the Minister of Health will respond to that very long-winded question.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I will have to put my question and supplementary to the Minister of Natural Resources all into one, in view of the time.

Mr. Gordon: That is hard for you to do, isn't it?

Mr. Laughren: Possibly.

The minister will know that he has a blanket exemption for forestry activities under the Environmental Assessment Act and that this exemption expires three weeks from today. When that exemption was granted back in April of this year, it was in order to give the ministry time to prepare a document that would explain the effects of forestry management activities on the forests and crown lands in Ontario.

Can the minister tell us today whether or not he intends to ask for an extension of the exemption, which is due to expire at the end of this month, as I say; second, whether or not the document that his ministry was given time to prepare has in fact been prepared; and third, if the minister is intending to get a continuation of the exemption, will he then specifically refer forestry activity exemptions to the new advisory committee that is going to be advising the Premier (Mr. Davis) on exemptions to the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, the status of forestry activity exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act, class exemptions and the timing of filing of documents is under discussion with the Ministry of the Environment. I have personally attended a couple of meetings over the past few months. We are attempting to satisfy the staff of the Ministry of the Environment with respect to some logical processes, and as soon as we have completed the negotiations we will let the honourable member know.

Mr. Laughren: Would the minister not agree that if major activities, particularly those north of the 50th parallel such as aerial spraying and the building of roads in remote areas, are not subject to the Environmental Assessment Act, he is really holding the entire environmental assessment process in Ontario in contempt and making a mockery of it? Will the minister assure us that if there is a continuation of allowing that kind of exemption, those kind of projects will be referred to that advisory committee?

Hon. Mr. Pope: For the last 18 months we have been working with every single interest group in the province to get a planned development program in place for our forestry sector and for the lands in northern Ontario. No other ministry has worked more at public participation and consultation with all the interest groups, and I think we have a couple of models that have a lot of --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Pope: They want to stop development. We want to make it happen on a planned basis that will respect the environment.

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

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I hope you will allow me to raise some of the remarks that I wanted to raise earlier, when I was --

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I must point out to the honourable member that he does not have a point of privilege, neither is there any provision in the standing orders to allow for or accommodate what he wishes to do.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, pertaining to the letter to which I alluded during question period, I would like to read the letter into the record just so that --

Mr. Speaker: No. There is no provision for that either. The honourable member does not have a point of privilege or order.

Ms. Copps: My privilege is that I believe I overstated the case when I did state that he --

Mr. Speaker: No.

Ms. Copps: I would like to correct the record by including --

Mr. Speaker: Whatever. The only matter, with all respect, that was out of order was that you referred to the honourable member by name rather than by riding. I think we could say that we could correct the record to have it read, "the member for Scarborough West."

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I understood that if a minister was not present he would at least inform the House leaders that he would not be here so he could be excused --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege and there is no --

Mr. Ruston: But it was a good point.

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not really, because I do not know of anything that provides for that information.

PETITION

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which states as follows:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows: We request that the honourable members seek the withdrawal of Bill 127, an Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act."

Mr. Speaker, as a government whip, I am tabling these petitions on behalf of my colleagues. Thank you.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Andrewes from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Ministry administration program, $16,438,000; community planning program, $47,634,000; land development program, $16,270,000; community development program, $42,993,000; Ontario Housing Corp. program, $149,291,000; Ontario mortgage program, $51,159.000; and municipal affairs program, $694,191,000.

11:20 a.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ashe moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ramsay, first reading of Bill 203, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, this bill will remove the requirements now contained in the Fuel Tax Act 1981 that the applicant for relief from the cost of construction or acquisition of tanks for the storage or transportation of fuel and which are required in order to comply with the terms of the coloured fuel program must obtain the minister's approval prior to the commitment of any funds for that purpose.

As well, certain administrative amendments are provided which will extend the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the minister to make regulations.

LAND TRANSFER TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ashe moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ramsay, first reading of Bill 204, An Act to amend the Land Transfer Tax Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, this bill will provide the the necessary amendments to the Land Transfer Tax Act to ensure that a nonresident may not avoid the 20 per cent tax imposed on conveyances of agricultural land.

Without these amendments it is possible for a nonresident to avoid payment of the proper rate of tax through purchase of shares in a company which owns Ontario agricultural land or by acquiring the beneficial interest of a trust which owns agricultural land.

As well, a number of administrative amendments are included in the bill which will extend the notice of objection and appeals provision, extend certain rights to the spouse of a nonresident purchaser of land, recognize the single consolidated affidavit and provide for the determination of the value of consideration in certain conveyances.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ramsay moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ashe, first reading of Bill 205, An Act to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to introduce a series of amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act that are designed, in part, to increase permanent and temporary pensions and benefits for workers, increase the allowances for the dependants, increase the ceiling on covered earnings and clothing allowances, and change the name of the act to the Worker's Compensation Act and replace the word "employee" sith the word "worker" in all relevant sections of the act.

The amendments I am tabling today are designed to make workers' benefit increases retroactive to July 1, 1982. I know this legislation has the support of all three parties in the House and I look forward to the rapid passage of the bill before the House recesses.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD (CONTINUED)

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr, Chairman, just before we proceed any further, on Monday, the last day we were considering the estimates of the ministry, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) touched on the question of Experience '82 and the involvement of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in that program. I believe at that time he stated the budget for the ministry's involvement in Experience '82 had been reduced from that which we had enjoyed for Experience '81. At that time I indicated that was certainly not my understanding, and I would check to substantiate the figures. I want to report those figures to the member and to the members of the committee.

I guess the best way to do it is to give him the figures for this and the two subsequent fiscal years for the Experience employment programs for young people and to tell him of the involvement of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. In fiscal 1980-81, the budget for the Experience program was $13,500,000, of which the Ministry of Agriculture and Food was allocated $687,600 or, as a percentage, 5.1 per cent, and that employed 661 people. In 1981-82, the budget for the overall program was the same, $13,500,000, of which the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's portion was $666,900, or 4.9 per cent, and that employed 622 people. So there was a small decline between 1980-81 and 1981-82.

For the 1982-83 estimates we are considering now, which I am carrying for the first time, the budget for the overall program is $13,750,000, from which the allocation for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is $935,500. which is 6.8 per cent of the total. We have gone from 4.9 per cent to 6.8 per cent of the total and we have been able to employ 829 young people with those funds, as opposed to 622 last year. I know the member would want his impression to be corrected and to have these figures on the record.

Mr. Chairman: Before we continue with the first vote, the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) has requested consideration from the chair to have the opportunity to make a few remarks.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I have no objection to that, but I wonder if for the rest of today we could continue with vote 1901. I was strongly of the opinion at our last sitting that we should move to vote 1902 and get into the details. Circumstances being what they are in this House now, we are perhaps going to be able to deal with only part of the remaining estimates before Christmas. If we could stay on this, we will see what happens by next Friday and we can go into the individual estimates at that time. I make that as a suggestion, but I do not feel strongly about it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would just point out, Mr. Chairman, before I started my response to the opening remarks last week I did ask, inasmuch as the offical opposition has two people designated as agricultural critics, if the second critic was going to make an opening statement, and the answer was no. I would have stood down my responses until we had heard that statement. I am in the hands of the committee as to whether we finish vote 1901 or have another opening statement. It is really up to the committee.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, I did not realize the deputy critic had an opening statement, but he tells me he does. If it is agreeable to the House I am quite agreeable to having him make his opening statement. But I think we do have to get on to the other votes as quickly as we can, because I know some of the members have some comments they want to make on the Ontario Veterinary College and the situation it is in at the present time. This comes up towards the latter part of the votes. I do not think we can spend all our time on the first vote and not get to some of these other votes where we have some important matters to discuss.

11:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, to expedite it perhaps we can finish vote 1901. I do not know if there are any other items to deal with in vote 1901. When we get to vote 1902, which gets into more of the specific policy areas, perhaps the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) could make his statement then. We could thus make some progress through the votes and items.

Mr. Chairman: My personal feeling is I would not mind clearing something off the deck such as the first vote. We have already spent a long time on it. Surely we are close to completion.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to spend a lot of time on points of order because our time is limited, but it was for exactly this reason I suggested we stay on vote 1901 today. Under administration we can discuss any item. I thought it would not confine anybody if we stayed on this today until we see whether we are going to have any more time on the estimates at all. That was my reason for making that suggestion.

Mr. Chairman: All right. The member for Grey; I hope it is not two hours long.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Chairman, I do not think anybody can remember when I made an extremely long statement so you can be assured I will not take up too much time.

I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in the Agriculture and Food estimates. I think Agriculture and Food is the most important ministry we have. Deep down, everyone has to think that way because at least three times a day it comes very close to our minds and stomachs when we partake of the good food of Ontario. That is what agriculture is all about.

I want to congratulate the new Minister of Agriculture and Food on being appointed to his ministry. I said "his ministry" and I was going to criticize him a wee bit for saying "my ministry." I remember the minister saying a while ago he was called early one morning by one of the farmers who said, "I want to speak to my minister." I think this hit home to the minister and he began to realize then he was the minister of everyone in Ontario.

At the same time, I think the Ministry of Agriculture and Food belongs to everyone in Ontario, I feel the minister should say "our ministry" instead of "my ministry," although a lot of ministers do say "my ministry." When talking about their homes, I wonder if they would say "my home" or "my family." Their wives would pull the reins quickly and have them say "our." It might sound a little better if he said "our ministry" rather than "my ministry."

I congratulate him on his appointment. This being his first estimates, it is good to be able to take part in t. I had some scepticism when the member for Don Mills was appointed agriculture minister because of his lack of agricultural experience. But he has been a high profile minister in the cabinet and we took the optimistic view that this was a good appointment and could give agriculture a higher profile in the cabinet. I think everyone was quite willing to give him a chance to see what he could do for agriculture. That is what we are doing and we wish him success. If he has success we know the farmers of Ontario will have success.

I was pleased to see the reorganization he did within the ministry. It was badly needed and it appears on the surface to be reorganized well. He has some good people there. If they get out to the farmers for the needed information and get to know the industry well, it is to be hoped they will be able to take the right steps to see that agriculture in Ontario continues to flourish.

I am sorry I was not here on Monday when these estimates were going on. I remained at home to attend a meeting of the Grey County Federation of Agriculture on the new proposal of the farm tax rebate. As the minister is quite aware, my area has been opposed to this change in the rebate system for many good reasons. I suppose the underlying factor here is that the statistics for Grey county show there are more than 1,000 farms of between 70 and 130 acres. We are quite convinced these farms will be paying more in tax even if they get the rebate. We will discuss this further under the proper vote.

I hope the minister will be careful about doing anything that will hurt the small, part-time or young farmer. Most young farmers start off as small farmers too. The big farmer, who has been promoted by the Minister of Agriculture and Food, agricultural colleges and banks, is now in trouble. When you bring out programs they should be for everyone, not just the ones you have helped get into trouble.

I think the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program should be for everyone. It was brought out that if you had a certain amount of equity you did not qualify. The milk producers, who were in good shape last year, are now in trouble. So it is a kind of delaying thing if you say, "You are not eligible this year, but if you get into bad enough shape next year we will help you."

The local banks in our area are saying the majority of their milk producers' accounts are now in trouble. This is different from what it vvas a year ago. We are all well aware of the beef situation, but now even the milk producers are getting into trouble.

The Ontario beef farmer was assisted last year and that same assistance should be there for him this year. The cow-calf operator, the feeder operator and the finisher, the feedlot man, all got assistance last year. Actually it is needed just as much or more this year, and if we do not give them that assistance this year I am afraid we will scuttle the beef business in Ontario. Other provinces are giving assistance; they are protecting their beef industry. Sure we have too much product now, but did that stop Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Quebec from helping their beef farmers to stay in business?

Food shortages are coming. I have heard that statement, I guess, for 25 years, and people are beginning to feel: "They have always been saying in Ontario that we are going to run out of food and we are going to have a food shortage. Yet we can go and fill our food basket every day without any problem; we always have surpluses."

So they do not believe it when you say we are going to have a food shortage. But I feel a food shortage is closer now than it ever has been. I think it is not very far away and this is why I feel we should be assisting the farmers at this time when they are in trouble -- and all farmers, not just specific ones -- so that our industry remains strong in Ontario. We cannot just help the weak ones and feel that the stronger ones do not need assistance, or, as I mentioned previously, those strong ones will then become weak. We need to give the same assistance to all farmers so our agriculture will remain strong.

I feel there may be one thing lacking in our new Minister of Agriculture and Food. I agree with him when he says we should keep good records. That has been brought out strongly during this time of financial problems.

11:40 a.m.

An hon. member: That is nothing new.

Mr. McKessock: I certainly agree with that. I was one of the first six farmers in Ontario who were asked to go on the computer Canfarm program. I refused to go on that program, because I like keeping my own books. I felt that by doing the books on a monthly basis I kept my finger on the industry. I am not knocking Canfarm. I know for large operators there are great adsantages to being on the computer system but I felt, when the information is sent out to be processed and the processed material comes back, there is a temptation to set it on the shelf or in a drawer or not to take the time to use it the way it should be used. But when I had to do my own books each month, I was forced to keep a finger on the pulse of the industry. I know the value of good records, and I certainly agree with the minister when he says we should be keeping good records. That is certainly a big part of staying in business.

I agreed with him when he reorganized the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I agree he has a deep concern for agriculture and for farmers in this province, but I feel the new minister may lack that gut feeling about agriculture that comes from extensive time spent in the business. If he had that gut feeling he would know that agriculture in Ontario is in deep trouble. Even if he does not it should be evident to him the way bankruptcies are continuing, the way farm-land values and the price of farm produce are dropping at the present time.

I am going to list a few things I feel the minister should do to see that agriculture remains strong and is not let slip away. It is the gut feeling I have that makes me feel these things should be done. The minister should immediately give $45 million or $50 million, or whatever is needed, to the beef industry, as he gave it last year. If the government feels that Suncor deserves $650 million and the beef industry does not deserve $45 million, its priorities are way out of whack. The agricultural industry is still the backbone of our country and we are going to have this brought back to us very strongly in the future if we let our industry deteriorate.

Second, the minister should immediately offer the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program to all farmers who have borrowed money. If one needs assistance the other does as well. Assets in a farm operation mean very little. They are just the farmer's factory whereby he makes a living. Whether or not a farmer has 60 or 70 per cent of his assets paid, he is still losing money if he is in the beef industry. The difference is the farmer who owns more takes it out of his own hide and gradually gets thinner, while the farmer without equity takes it out of the hide of the government. That is hardly an incentive to stay in agriculture.

I want to bring out a little problem I see in OFAAP that was brought to my attention just recently. It concerns those who did not apply for loan guarantees last year under the program and now find they need them. A neighbour of mine applied three weeks ago, and he has been turned down and has been told he must now apply under the 1983 application for loan guarantees. We all know the experience with the 1982 applications. It took a long time to get these processed. I do not care if the minister is shaking his head. I have had experience in this area with the people who have phoned me.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member cannot generalize like that. There are individual cases, yes, but generally, it was about four weeks in total on an average --

Mr. McKessock: I want to point out why I am bringing this up. The individual has been told now he is to apply under the 1983 application, which will delay him in getting his guarantee. He needs the guarantee now. I cannot see why, when he applied for his guarantee three weeks ago, it could not have come under the 1982 program. We are still in 1982. He needs the money now to purchase the cattle.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Why did we turn down the guarantee?

Mr. McKessock: He did not apply for the guarantee in 1982, that is my point. Now he is told that to get a guarantee he has to make his application now for 1983, but it is delaying that process. By the time he gets his guarantee for the 1983 season it will be too late for him. He needs that guarantee now rather than two or three months from now.

As the minister is beckoning his assistant, I will give him the name of the individual and he can check it out. It is Alex Torrie of RR 5, Chatsworth.

Mr. Riddell: Tory?

Mr. McKessock: It is T-o-r-r-i-e.

Mr. Riddell: Oh, that is better.

Mr. McKessock: There is just a little adjustment there. Hopefully, the minister can allow him to have that money now rather than at a delayed time, because the timing on these things is very important, as anybody in business knows.

The third thing the minister should be bringing in is the low interest rate loans for mortgages for young farmers that were promised, at an interest rate of no more than eight per cent over a 30-year period. I say this to get some stabilization into the agricultural business for the young farmer.

I have a 29-year farm credit mortgage. I know that is what is needed. One has to have a mortgage for that length of time at a low interest rate to be able to compete today. There is no way the young farmer will be able to compete unless he has that kind of a mortgage loan at that kind of an interest rate.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is the member's --

Mr. McKessock: I still feel this is part of the basic foundation to establish a solid agricultural field in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What if he cannot get the price for what he produces. What good is it?

Mr. McKessock: Definitely the price is part of it, but the mortgaging and financing are a big part of it too. I have had experience in this. It is what has helped me. Without it I would never have been able to start.

This should be done now while farm land values are at a level the young farmer can afford. There is no use waiting and bringing in this program when farm land values tend to rise again, and get beyond reach, or even get to a point where if he could buy it he could not afford to operate the industry.

I think there is a great opportunity for young farmers right now if they have the tools to work with. The tools I am talking about are the very basic tools -- that is, low interest rate mortgage money to buy this land that is now available at a level they can afford, a level that will work for them.

The fourth thing the minister should do is bring in a capital grants program to go along with this. Again I look at my own situation and this is what has happened through my period of time which, I think, helped me tremendously. I liked the 12-year program that was in place, which ran out a couple of years ago or was readjusted. The only change needed in that program for today is to bring it up to a realistic figure.

11:50 a.m.

At that time, I believe we could get 40 per cent of capital, which adds up to $3,000. That figure today should be $20,000. I think the 40 per cent figure is all right; 40 per cent of capital costs up to $20,000. That means the farmer would then have to put in 60 per cent of the dollars himself.

This would go along nicely with the young farmers' low interest rate mortgage program because if they buy a farm that is slightly run down -- and some of them are running down fast these days. They would have that capital grant program to go along with the mortgage to bring the farm up to a good production level.

Fifth, I will get into a couple of points on the longer-term outlook for agriculture. They are not immediate things such as I have just mentioned, but I still think they are sery important for the continuation of agriculture in this country. We have to stop development on prime agricultural land in all parts of Ontario. It is just --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Stop all development? Nothing?

Mr. McKessock: I think we have to take steps now to get to that area. I know on the --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Be clear.

Mr. McKessock: Okay. what I mean is to stop all development, but what we have to do to get to that area -- when I went home not more than six weeks ago there was an ordinary farm field. Right now there will be eight or 10 houses in that field. They were starting to put in the roads. I thought they were getting it ready to start next spring and that they were getting a little start on it before winter sets in. The roads were put in. The tiles were put in. The next time I went past, the foundations were being started. Those houses are springing up like corn in the early spring.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Where?

Mr. MeKessock: At Caledon, right on Highway 10; I was surprised. By spring, those houses are all going to be up. My point is one cannot stop at a particular foundation. We cannot say, "Stop there and do not put up those other six houses where you have the roads and everything in." Anything that has been started is going to have to be finished. The way the system is right now, our policy for holding agricultural land is really to hold it until somebody else wants it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What is the member saying?

Mr. McKessock: I am saying we should not be developing on prime agricultural farm land.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Any? Ever? Anywhere?

Mr. McKessock: Yes, any -- after we put the boundaries where they should he.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would like the member to be very clear. Is he saying that at some point, whether it is this year, in 18 months or whatever, that there should be an absolute, total, irrevocable freeze on all prime farm land. The member said prime farm land and perhaps he would be so good as to define what he means by that. Does he mean class 1, class 2, classes 1 to 4? What does he mean? Is he saying there should be an absolute, irrevocable freeze on every last hectare of whatever he defines as prime farm land? I would like to know if that is his party's position.

Mr. Chairman: While we have this break I was going to suggest the minister will have an opportunity to reply to the member's opening remarks.

Mr. McKessock: I am finishing them now.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the minister could hold off, have a short reply and then we will get back to the vote.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, I will be guided by you. I had rather hoped that, although we are not in a standing committee which is much less formal, we could have at least some of the less formal exchange so we can be clear. I do not mind responding to interjections or questions and I did so several times through the course of my opening remarks. But you are in the chair.

Mr. McKessock: I thank the minister for those comments. Being a politician and not a lawyer, I have to be even more careful with what I say. I see what happens in --

Mr. Chairman: Some argue that it is one and the same.

Mr. McKessock: That is true. You have to be careful with what you say because sometimes what you say is taken out of context later. I often criticize the law and the judges in the courts for making certain technical rulings when they know very well the intent of the law.

I think you know my intent as to what I want, and these are my personal opinions. I am saying prime agricultural land is class 1, 2 and 3 land. Sure, on my farm if I have to have another barn I need space to build it. That is agricultural use and cannot be interfered with. But to take a good corn field and build houses or factories on it for industry, in a province where only nine or 10 per cent of the land is agricultural land, that means the other 90 per cent has to be for something else, so it is very obvious we have other places to build.

I know people say, "We do not want to live up north." We all want to huddle around Toronto, Hamilton or Niagara Falls. I think that is wrong. First of all, I feel that cities are big enough; and second, we should preserve that agricultural land because some day our offspring are going to say, "How stupid could those people be? They covered up all this good land with cement and now we do not have enough to eat." We cannot reclaim that land. We are not going to knock down buildings and put this land back into agricultural production. Once it is gone it is gone for good. I think we are being very short-sighted in building on this fine farm land.

My last point is foreign ownership of farm land. We should not allow that. Anybody who wants to move here from another country and work the land that is fine. This has happened in the past and lots of these people have made good farmers; but to come here, buy farm land and then go back home, even if they are renting it out to somebody else -- that is fine, but the land starts to deteriorate and it is out of our hands; when we let this land go to other interests we should be assured they are going to stay here and work it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to make those few comments.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond briefly to some of the points raised by the member for Grey, the associate critic or whatever -- I do not know what title is used -- of the official opposition.

I want to thank him for his kind remarks about my appointment. In the course of my tenure in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food I can only hope I will be successful. To the extent the minister is successful in addressing agricultural problems in all sectors of agriculture, that will reflect well on the progress of the industry and all the --

Mr. Riddell: I sometimes think we are entirely too kind. I would like to be more critical.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I do not think so. I can assure my friend I work overtime to find ways to avoid giving him opportunities to be too critical. That is my job and maybe why I am still a minister after nine years.

I am pleased to note he has commented favourably on the reorganization of the ministry. We tried very hard to reorder our priorities within the ministry to zero in on particular problems. Again I want to point out to my friend, if he was not here when I made the remarks a couple of weeks ago, that we have carried out the reorganization within the bounds of the existing budget and staff allocations.

12 noon

I know it is often the concern of taxpayers; when they hear about a minister reorganizing they figure, "That means more staff and more money being spent on salaries and wages and benefits." That is not the case here. We have stayed within the existing budget. In fact, from last fall through to the point of reorganizing, we pretty well had a hiring freeze in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Only in essential cases were positions allowed to be filled, from last fall through to the spring, and even now there are many positions still frozen as we complete the reorganization of each of the branches after having done the superstructure.

We have tried to zero in on matters such as marketing, at home and abroad. We have zeroed in on soil erosion problems, and I hope the member for Kent-Elgin has seen a copy of the speech I made -- I lose track of the days -- I think it was Wednesday night at --

Mr. McGuigan: I heard you on the radio this morning.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I must get that tape.

Mr. Riddell: Did you send us a copy of your speech?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I believe so, but I will check to make sure.

There is also the study we asked the Ontario Institute of Pedology to carry out for us, on which my speech is based. There is the new rural organizations and services branch bringing together under one branch all the various services we provide to the rural community, and the list goes on. We can get into those, if we ever get to them, as we proceed through the votes and items.

I am aware of the concern of the member for Grey with respect to the changes in the farm tax rebate program. I want to point out to him that this has been revived at the specific request of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. In July of this year, the program proposal was shelved. The federation and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario were informed it had been shelved for a variety of reasons, one of which was a concern on the part of the officials of the Treasury about the additional costs inherent in the new program.

Following that, the federation made submissions to a number of us in the cabinet requesting that we reconsider. Various ministers, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), myself and others, discussed it with the federation and decided among ourselves that we would accede to the request and revive the proposal. I announced it at the annual meeting of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Members will recall that the program in 1984 will see an increase of more than $20 million, more than a third of the existing program. If memory serves me correctly, in 1983 the payout under the existing program should be something of the order of $63 million. In 1984, it will be $85 million.

Under the existing program, there is a 50 per cent rebate across the board on the land, the buildings and the residences of those who meet the present production criterion of $5,000 in gross production. I emphasize "gross production," because these are not net income figures. In 1982 and 1983 -- and the existing program is retained for 1982 and 1983 -- that production figure moved to $8,000 for the whole province, and again that is a figure for gross production, not net income.

I can dig back into my opening statement to give examples of the amount of acreage that one would have to have in production. For instance, if my memory serves me correctly, seven acres of tomatoes, under current prices, would meet the criterion.

Mr. McKessock: Do you realize that if a beef farmer sold 25 calves at $300 each this year, it would be $7,500?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have to draw the line somewhere -- unless the member is saying he just wants handouts. I hope that is not what he is saying, because that is not what I hear from the farm organizations or from the farmers. They realize these programs have got to be reasonable and financially sound and, quite frankly, an $8,0000 gross production figure is not unreasonable in this day and age.

Mr. McKessock: I am saying to be careful of what you do to the small farmers.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I want to point out that in addition, when the new program comes in, while the figure will grow to $12,000 in southern Ontario, it will stay at $8,000 in eastern and northern Ontario; basically that is the area east of the Durham-Northumberland/Durham-Peterborough/Victoria-Haliburton line and north of the Simcoe-Muskoka line.

The rebate for land on which the residences sit, as the member knows, always has been a criticism of the existing program: the program is designed to support agricultural production; why are we rebating taxes on houses under the farm tax rebate program? It has always been argued by a great many that they are not part of an agricultural resource.

This program will be targeted from 1984 onwards at the productive farm land with the revised production criteria. As far as the residences are concerned, there will be one acre, more or less, considered to be the residential site which will be assessed at 50 per cent of prevailing rates. Even there, the farm community will get a break.

The residences will be assessed at the same rates as any other residence in that community, and that is fair. Aside from the farm tax rebate on the productive land, the farmers, like any other citizen in the province, will be able to apply on their annual income tax returns for the property tax credit on their residences.

This is something that the member might have lost sight of. I think I can predict with some certainty that at the meeting to which he referred, that point was not brought out. Is that right?

Mr. McKessock: Yes, that point was brought out. Of what benefit is that going to be to a farmer?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If memory serses me correctly, there is about $250 million per year that is rebated through the property tax credit program. That is aside from the farm tax rebate program.

Mr. McKessock: Aside from the senior citizens' rebates?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think that includes --

Mr. McKessock: Well, that is where the majority comes from.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will dig that out to be sure. I am going from memory now, because the figures are from another ministry, but it is about $250 million per year that is going out in property tax credits, aside from the farm tax rebate program.

Mr. McKessock: At 65, you will be all right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If you are over 65 then there is a different tax credit, as the member knows. You also start to qualify for sales tax credits and that sort of thing. Some municipalities have even further tax abatement programs for seniors.

Obviously, then, the majority of farmers will end up paying lower net taxes.

I will tell my friend where we are going to hear complaints about this. It is going to be in those instances -- the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) was getting at it the other day and I think he was specifically zeroing in on doctors and lawyers, whoever they are, who move to the country, who build very large residences. We have all seen them, in all parts of the province. At present, if they meet the production criteria the 50 per cent tax rebate cuts right across and they get back 50 per cent of the taxes on those large residences.

12:10 p.m.

One must legitimately ask, "Why on earth would you apply farm tax rebates, which are intended to support and encourage the use of productive land in this province, against what are in some cases palatial country residences?" This program will do away with that. They will pay their taxes separately, and if they have very large residences they will pay accordingly, like any other citizen.

Mr. McGuigan: There is no disagreement with that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No; so the vast majority will end up paying lower net taxes.

Mr. McKessock: Well, we will see at the end of the year.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Okay. I am not going to stand here and say that there is not a single individual who will end up paying more. I just want to put the facts out as we know them now: there will be a one-third increase estimated in our expenditures for the new program as opposed to the old in 1983; large residences now will be taxed accordingly and people will pay their fair share according to the local assessment of residences; but the productive farm land will have the taxes rebated.

It was also the honourable member's county, if memory serves me correctly, that was concerned about the original proposal, which would have exempted productive farm land and removed it from the tax rolls so that the individual property owner would not pay taxes on it, and obviously the municipality would not collect them.

I am sure it was Grey county that was one of the first to object to that because of the concern on the part of individual land owners and the municipalities that this somehow would vest in the province an undue type and level of control over that land; that somehow, notwithstanding the fact that the title still would be vested in the individual farmer, this threw a cloud over it.

I think the concern was expressed the other day by the member for Huron-Middlesex that if hunters, snowmobilers, hikers or whoever were to venture on to the property, somehow the farmer would have a reduced right to demand that they leave his property.

Mr. McKessock: I think the biggest concern was how the municipalities were going to get their taxes.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am coming to that. The municipalities in turn said, "Obviously if you exempt the productive farm land, you are going to significantly reduce our assessment base; and we do not know what is going to happen in the future from year to year with municipal grants from the province and how they will relate to this reduced assessment base, whether you will continue to pay us grants in lieu on those exempted lands that truly reflect their value if they were to continue to be assessed and taxed by us."

All in all, we accepted the arguments of both the farm community and the municipalities and went with a rebate program rather than an exemption program. So you will continue to pay your taxes each year. In 1983 the productive land, the residences, and the acreage, plus or minus, on which they sit, will be assessed by the assessment officials, and starting in 1984 you will pay your taxes on the two portions.

After you have paid your taxes and can send in proof of having paid them, you will be rebated on the land as long as you meet the production criteria; then you will carry on like any other private citizen with respect to the application for property tax credits under the income tax legislation.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Chairman, could I follow up on that just for a minute before the minister leaves the farm tax rebate program?

My feeling is that the house now will not be an expense on your income tax when that is taken into consideration; you will not be able to put it down now as an expense; and you will not have your taxes as an expense when that is taken into consideration. I feel this is going to be a big area that probably has not been looked at either, which is going to nullify some of the advantages.

The other thing I want to mention is the appeal. The minister has mentioned an appeal process, but so far I cannot see the purpose of an appeal. If it is cut and dried that you must have $8,000 or $12,000 production, what would there be to appeal?

I would like to see the appeal board have some leeway, if we are going to stick with this program. These legitimate farmers may be part-time farmers, small farmers or young farmers who may be making the best possible use of their land and still just bringing in $7,500. As I mentioned earlier, 25 cows at $300 each would be $7,500.

The beef farmer would have problems meeting that this year. Yet he should be not discriminated against because he is making the best possible use of his land; or he is working off the farm while trying to get established, maybe as a young farmer. Or he may have to work off the farm, because who can live on $7500? I think he is contributing to agriculture in Ontario and he should get his rebate the same as everybody else. I hope that under the appeal process they will have enough leeway to look at situations such as these.

Let us take the example of an elderly farmer who has farmed all his life. Despite the fact that he has cut down to $15,000 or $20,000, he is still contributing to agriculture. He has been here all his life. Why should he have to pay the full share of taxes? Or, as I have already mentioned, there is the young farmer who is building up the farm production.

I hope the appeal board will have some leeway in that area. If these farmers are contributing legitimately to agriculture, they should be allowed to get their rebates.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman,with respect. I think one could make the same arguments no matter where the criteria are set. Unless we are going to have no production criteria, no qualification criteria at all, then that argument is always possible.

Mr. McKessock: Leave it at $6,000.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Well, $6,000 would represent an increase over what it is now. Again, with respect, I have to say that $8,000 and $12,000 are not unreasonable when one is talking about gross production. One can make the argument that at $5,000 there are bound to be many who fall below it, who fall into those categories. One has to say, "All right, is it a reasonable figure in this day and age when we are talking about gross production value?" I do not think they are unreasonable.

The intention of setting up the board is that there are bound to be some cases where considering certain production part of the farm's gross production, part of the $8,000 or $12,000, will be disputed. The board will be empowered to arbitrate decisions on those --

Mr. McKessock: Like inventories.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I suppose these are those kinds of things. I have not really turned my mind to the kinds of categories. There will be disputes about whether something is part of their gross production. They would arbitrate them but within the parameters of the program.

Mr. McKessock: Let us say you were increasing your herd so that you did not sell it but actually your inventory increased; I assume that could go down as gross production.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am not sure. Those are the kinds of examples on which between now and when we introduce the legislation next year we are going to have to think up all the possible permutations. With 80,0000 farmers and every single one being different, it is impossible to conceive of every possible situation. For that very reason, we have said we have an appeal board. I think that is only fair.

Mr. McGuigan: Perhaps you can overcome that if you use the accrual method of accounting.

12:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member went on to indicate that we should be repeating the 1981 beef assistance program, which we discussed here a week or two ago in the course of question period. As the member knows, we have had special assistance programs twice, in 1975 and 1981.

The intention of commissioning the task force report more than a year ago was to get away from ad hoc, across-the-board programs, because it was rightly felt that when you use that kind of approach you do not always help the ones who need the help most.

Mr. McKessock: They all need the help.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, there are some people, and my friend knows some as well as I do, who are turning a profit in the beef industry this year. You cannot generalize and say there is not a single soul making money, because that would not be true. Again, it is because every single producer is different in terms of the mix of debt, equity and cost; they are all different.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Excuse me. If my friend thinks back more than a year ago to that task force report, it recommended that a program be set up, as we have done, called the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program, which would be targeted and based on individual evaluations of each case; and that is what has been done.

It was the stated intention at the time that we would get away from ad hoc programs. It was also stated at the time -- I think I am correct in this -- that the government should take steps to see that an improved stabilization plan was brought into being.

I cannot emphasize too strongly what I have said to the member both privately and publicly. We need, and the farmers of Ontario need, the help of the 33 members who sit opposite and who are members of the same party as the government of Canada to impress on them the importance and the necessity of the government of Canada meeting with the provincial governments and the national producer organizations to follow up on the strong consensus that the provincial governments and the producer organizations arrived at in Regina just five weeks ago.

Mr. McKessock: How come all the other provinces agreed to this too, and yet they set up their own programs?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Hold on. I will come to that. My friend should not try to avoid what I am telling him.

Mr. McKessock: I am not trying to avoid it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Maybe he would like to tell us later what he has done about that and how many times and whom he has spoken to in Ottawa to urge this on them, because we need his help. For whatever reason, notwithstanding that at Halifax in July the consensus was there, notwithstanding the fact that in Regina five weeks ago the consensus -- and it involved not only the provincial governments. I can see that maybe --

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I have never been in a committee before where the minister has taken the length of time that he has in the estimates that are before this committee. He may feel an obligation to go on at great length, but I point out that if you compute the time used thus far, which is about 12 hours, the minister has taken half of that 12 hours. He gave a two-hour introductory speech and almost a three-hour reply to the introductory speeches by the member and me, and now he has taken longer in his reply than the member for Grey took in his speech.

The minister may feel an obligation to reply in full to all his critics. but we are running out of time. There are some things that some of the rest of us want to say, and I think there should be some fair allocation of time. I am not suggesting that I have not had my share vis-à-vis that of the Liberal Party, but I am saying that from what I have ever seen in any other estimates, the minister has set a precedent with regard to the consumption of time.

The Deputy Chairman: In response to the honourable member's point of order, I can only suggest that the time is the time of all of us. We are on vote 1901, and as the questions are asked, the minister answers them. Maybe he can take note of what you have had to say. I certainly cannot take that as a point of order. It is up to the honourable members as to how they carry on.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order: I can understand the concerns of the member for Welland-Thorold, and perhaps we on this side are partly responsible. I believe it is a departure from the normal -- I was not a part of this; I did not understand this was going to happen -- to have two opening statements from one party.

I believe we have to take a look at this. The fact that a party has a lot of members and some of these members can share one portfolio does not mean that, whichever members are given the responsibility of that portfolio on the opposition side, both should be expected to make opening statements, unless there is an agreement between them that the critic will limit his time on an opening statement and let the deputy critic carry on.

I understand the problem the member for Welland-Thorold has raised. I did not realize the minister would be giving such a lengthy response to the second opening statement of this party. I hope he can wrap it up very soon so that we can get on with some other points we want to raise. I hope, when we do raise these other points, that we do not go on at great lengths but are very brief, get our point across, and let the minister be very brief in getting his response back to us. The chances are we will be able to cover many of the subjects we want to cover.

The Deputy Chairman: In the spirit of the chair, I can assure you I am not ruling on this. It is purely a matter of the minister and yourselves working this out.

Mr. Grande: The minister should restrict himself.

The Deputy Chairman: I will not restrict time limits in the committee.

Mr. Grande: With due respect, I did not suggest you should restrict the minister. I said the minister should restrict himself.

The Deputy Chairman: Fine; but I am a bit sensitive to the chair imposing restrictions on the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to be as brief as possible. In fact, in my earlier responses I left out a lot of material --

Interjection.

Mr. Riddell: Minister, maybe you should revert to your role as Minister of Health and do something to save the Deputy Chairman when he coughs like that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I see a veterinarian among the officials of m ministry here.

Mr. Swart: The minister should be able to distinguish between a cough from a human and an ailment restricted to an agricultural animal.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I can assure the member that ailments at the other end of the anatomy are more easily distinguished.

Mr. Chairman, I am trying to be brief and the honourable members are eating up the clock with all these interjections and points of order.

The member made a comment to the effect that food shortages are coming. With respect, that really is like the proverbial story of Henny Penny. Look at the record of production in this province. Look at the amount of land that is under cultivation in 1981-82 as compared to a decade ago: an increase of more than a million acres. Look at the productivity of the average Ontario farmer over the last 20, 25 or 30 years. It is all on the upgrade. Look at the amount of land that is under tile drainage now as compared to a decade ago.

With respect to the member -- I am sure it was not geared towards a headline or anything like that -- I say it is not true. Obviously the members on that side of the House and we on this side are here to make sure it does not come true. Everything we do is geared to maximizing our self-sufficiency in this province and in this country, to maximizing our role now and in the future with respect to feeding the world. I will not give all the statistics I gave the Christian Farmers Federation the other evening or the Canadian Club of Burlington a couple of months ago on the global problems of agriculture and the ability to feed the world. They are enormous and getting worse.

I was not aware that the member for Grey was one of the first six asked to go on Canfarm, but I am surprised to hear he refused. My understanding, having met with representatives of the Canfarm organization, and particularly Mr. Hannam from Wellington county, the past president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, was that the program involves much more than just submitting some figures once a month to a data centre and retrieving from the centre once a month a printout, which the member is concerned would just gather dust on a shelf.

12:30 p.m.

It is a total management concept, keying in to their banking practices, their purchasing practices, the maintenance of records about purchases and expenditures, sales and the like. I would hope that, over this winter and for the foreseeable future, we will be placing more and more emphasis, not just on Canfarm but on the total range of management practices which are now available.

I mentioned last week that we have now introduced the small computers, the type that many now have for their farms and businesses, into all of our colleges to expose this generation and future generations of young farmers to the use of this tool to maximize their efficiency and ability to plan and to react to changes in their input costs and returns to avoid getting themselves into difficulty.

The member mentioned six specific points. I think I have dealt with a number of them. I certainly have dealt with the young farmer loans earlier in the estimates, but we will probably come back to that.

On the capital grants program, I will repeat what I said a few months ago. We are looking at that program with a view, not to broaden it, not extending it, but to narrowing it to focus in on some key issues, particularly on soil conservation matters. It will be through that program that we will try to redirect some money in order to deal with those problems.

I come back to what I said to the member earlier. This is a very serious matter. It is something which is of concern to all parties and about which we should be absolutely clear. I take it the member is saying that with respect to the question of the preservation of prime farm land -- and he did not answer my question as to what the definition of prime farm land was, whether he was going by soil categorization, class 1 to 4, 1 to 2, or whatever. Would he accept 1 to 4? Is that his definition?

Mr. McKessock: I said 1, 2 and 3.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I take it that what he is saying on behalf of his party --

Mr. McKessock: No, I said it was a personal view.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Maybe later we will find out what the party's view is. The view that there should be an absolute freeze on any form of development of any kind, anywhere, at any time in the future in Ontario, I think is unrealistic.

I gave examples last week of refusing. For example, at least four or five of the members of his party wrote to me to ask me to reconsider this one where our staff fought proposals to establish a 10-acre cemetery in the region of Halton on prime farm land. We fought it saying there was class 5 or 6 land in that region which could be used and could be suitably landscaped and maintained as a cemetery. Our arguments carried the day, but I put the question to the members opposite, if there was no alternative in that area, is he still saying he would have turned that down? I could not.

Mr. McKessock: I cannot understand why you would fight for 10 acres for a cemetery but let thousands of acres around the cities be built up.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am just telling the member that the kind of approach he is advocating is unrealistic and unworkable. Even when I look at the private member's bill introduced in 1980 by the member for Welland-Thorold, which provided that every planning authority -- and where one did not exist, required the Minister of Housing to establish a planning authority -- in the province would inventory and map out all the class 1 to 4 land. Until such a plan was developed, no development would be allowed on any of that land except on the recommendation of the local planning authority.

It provided that once the mapping was carried out it would recommend to the local council which lands were to be designated as agricultural land, class 1 to 4, and it provided that the council was obligated to pass a bylaw to give effect to the recommendations of the planning authority. Then the effect of the bill was that no development would be allowed on those lands from that point on except by recommendation of the planning authority.

I want to point to both members that there are occasions when proposals come before us which we end up opposing at the Ontario Municipal Board, or at the local council level, which have been recommended by the local planning authority. So it is not quite as simple as the member was trying to make out the other day when he said the answer was in his bill. The answer in his bill is really not much different from the process we follow now, which is in effect a responsibility shared, as I indicated to the Christian Farmers Association the other evening, by the municipalities and the province for land use planning.

Mr. Chairman, I will come to some of the other items later in the votes and items, but the member asked me about one particular case with respect to the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program, and the staff went out and checked for me. Speaking generally, the criterion would be that a person can apply now and be accepted for the 1982 farm assistance program if he is a new applicant. The person in question is now on OFAAP with an interest rate reduction grant. He applied in June 1982 and was granted a retroactive interest rate reduction grant from January 4, 1982. So he is already on that.

Now we have said he can apply for 1983 in accordance with the program for 1983. He cannot apply in that we allow only one application per applicant on each option. He could have come back and said, if he was under option B, that he wanted to apply for something under A or C.

Mr. McKessock: That's what he has done.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, I understand he has applied once and has had his one application for 1982.

Mr. McKessock: He is allowed to apply twice now.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What the member is saying is that he wants to apply twice for 1982. The rules are that you can apply once for 1982. They are not unlike the rules for the Farm Credit Corp. or any program like that.

Mr. McKessock: You can see my point, though. He needs the money now, not next spring.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I'm sorry. I should make that clear; I do not want to mislead the member. You can apply for two options under one application, but it is in fact one application per year per farmer. As I say, it is not unlike the rules for the Farm Credit Corp. or any similar organization.

With those brief remarks, Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the member for Welland-Thorold that I have never done estimates in the House before, except for supplementary estimates for a couple of hours. But certainly what I am used to over the years, having done them in committee all the time, is a fairly freewheeling exchange. In fact, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) will recall years in Health estimates where we really did not even follow vote and item; we waited to the end. We had a very freewheeling exchange, jumping from one end to the other, and towards the end of what in some years seemed to be an interminable 20 or 25 hours, whatever it tended to be, then we went through the votes and items and concluded our consideration.

Mr. Conway: It was the day you started to smoke that we knew we had you, but you are right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Unfortunately, I started when I was about 18.

Mr. Conway: I have seen you smoke around here only once, and I will never forget it. But you are quite right in your response to the member for Welland-Thorold.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes. I certainly have always tried to give very thorough responses, though, and of course I always will. I would not want to leave the members with an incomplete response.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I guess we have about 23 minutes left, at least today, on these estimates. I want to give half the time to the critic for the Liberal Party.

There are a number of items I would like to cover in some more detail, but I think I will confine my remarks immediately to one subject and that is the matter of farm land preservation. I want to say that I do this because of the minister's evasiveness and, I suggest, his deliberately ignoring the procedures for preserving farm land and the provincial government's responsibility in it.

I have heard him try to imply now two, three or four times that the member for Grey wants to freeze every acre of farm land. He imputed those motives and that policy to me the other day, and today he is saying that my bill is not much different from what they are doing.

I want to say first of all to the minister, because he ignores this fact, that the preservation of our best farm land is exceedingly important to society generally and to the farmers in particular at this time.

12:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Nobody is challenging that.

Mr. Swart: I am saying that for society generally, and farmers in particular at this time, his answers are not good enough.

I was at the dinner of the Christian Farmers Association the other night when the minister spoke. He will remember he had eight questions afterwards and five of them referred to the preservation of our prime agricultural land. I wrote down some of his comments. "The province and the municipalities are in partnership on planning," "We can't freeze the land," "We can't legislate," "We can't dictate," and so on.

In all the speeches he has made, whether it was the one that night, his lead-in comments here, the one at the exhibition or one to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, not once did the minister say that agricultural land shall have priority in land use. Either he is ignorant about how we arrive at priorities in land use, and I do not think he is, or he really wants to evade and confuse on this matter.

For instance, the minister must know land use in this province is really decided by the Ontario Municipal Board. There is always a dispute when one brings in an official plan. There is the opportunity to refer the whole plan or parts of it to the OMB. The same is true of zoning bylaws. Land use is ultimately decided by that independent body. He must know that independent body makes its decisions largely on provincial government policies.

There should be a provincial government policy, whether it is the Foodland Guidelines, amended as the minister has been asked to do by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, or whether it is some other statement of policy by the Ontario government, that in all land use documents, official plans and zoning bylaws in the determination of land use, whether the minister classes that as 1, 2, 3 or 4, prime and unique agricultural land shall have priority over all other land uses.

If he adds the words "except in exceptional cases" or whatever, but if he none the less clearly establishes the general principle in his government that the preservation of prime agricultural land shall have priority, he will have taken the step necessary to do it.

The minister should not try to evade that. That is a fact and that is what his government refuses to do. He must know that at the present time the policy statement on aggregate extraction is such that it takes priority over agriculture.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It does not.

Mr. Swart: Of course it does; it certainly does.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It does not.

Mr. Swart: There is nothing anywhere in the policies that says the preservation of prime agricultural land shall take priority over urban development. He has not stated in any of his speeches that urban development in principle should be moved away from prime agricultural land and should take place off prime agricultural land.

I want to see him and his government take a stand. It is not good enough to say, "This is up to the municipality to decide." He knows how it can be accomplished. He knows what the New Democratic Party government did in British Columbia by establishing the land commission.

They did not freeze the land. There were very few exceptions given while the NDP government was in power. He must know that. That is the most effective land preservation we have in Canada. It is not now because, when the Conservative government got hack in power, whether it is called Social Credit or whatever, it changed the members of the commission to those who were primarily interested in development and they let it go through.

It is simple and I want to hear you across this province; if you mean what you say about preserving prime land, make those statements, put it in documents that the use of our prime agricultural land for agriculture, indefinitely, shall take priority in principle over all other land uses.

When the intent goes before the Ontario Municipal Board, just like the document that went before the OMB in the Durham hearing -- the official plan of the Durham region -- as soon as that document was sent on aggregate they had to include it in their official plan, because the OMB said: "That is government policy, you must include it in your official plan. Show the aggregate and have it there reserved for extraction."

If you prepare that kind of document, as you have been asked to do by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, as this party has been pushing for, for years and years and years -- and incidentally members of this party have been actively involved, as I am sure you are aware, and in fact have taken the lead in the whole matter of land preservation. I do not want to see you get up on your feet and tell us again that either you freeze it all or you cannot save it. You have to take responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member seems to have a penchant for trying to distort or wanting to distort, deliberately it seems at times, the statements by other members of this House, which led to a rather classic exchange earlier in the week. That is not what I said.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I do not even know what he said now. He said that is not what he said, but he did not say what he did say, and that is one of the real problems because he has never made those kinds of statements that the preservation of agricultural land should have priority. That is just what I am saying.

If the minister would get up now and say he will produce a document that says the prime land in this province will have priority indefinitely for use of agriculture in our official plans, I tell you that would accomplish it, even that statement by him, leave alone putting it in the document. But you refrain from doing that and, therefore, what we have in this province at the present time are policy statements, one on aggregate extraction, which is a strong statement for land use, "must be included" -- it does not say "should" -- in the official plans of the municipality, but no such similar strong statement with regard to agriculture.

In this party, in the proposed new Aggregates Act, the Pits and Quarries Control Act, we endeavoured to get a clause in there to establish the principle that agricultural land should have priority for agricultural purposes, not extraction. The Conservative majority on that committee voted against it.

In the new Planning Act, we tried to get a statement in there which would strengthen the preservation of agricultural land, give it greater priority. The Conservative majority on that committee voted against it. For the minister to say that he cannot do anything about this and that the best way to save agricultural land is to make the farmer viable -- nobody has any disagreement that the farmer has to be viable -- to propose that as the only way of preserving our prime agricultural land, shows a lack of sincerity in his attempt to save it.

I am not sure whether the agricultural critic for the Liberals is here. I said I would try to give equal time so I am going to sit at this time.

12:50 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: Are we ready for the vote on 1901? I do not want to rush it.

Mr. Riddell: Has the member for Welland-Thorold completed his remarks?

The Deputy Chairman: I am getting the feeling that he has, and I just did not want to rush it, because you were not in your chair where you could think the way you want to.

Mr. Riddell: I think it is rather important that we get on to the other votes. I have other things I could say, but I will not at this time.

Vote 1901 agreed to.

On vote 1902, agricultural marketing and industry development program:

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) had to go, because he wants to raise a number of matters under marketing.

I trust we are going to deal with the entire vote and not item by item. One of the things I have always been concerned about is the non-resident foreign ownership of land, and I am very pleased to hear that the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) has now introduced a bill to plug the loophole whereby foreign investors are able to evade the 20 per cent land transfer tax by virtue of the method they use to purchase the land.

It was just so obvious when you had a chance to look at the offer to purchase and the clause in this offer to purchase stressing on the farmer that before the deal could be consummated the farmer had to incorporate a numbered company; he would proceed to sell the farm to that corporation, and then he would proceed to transfer the shares to the foreign investor, thereby being able to escape the land transfer tax.

If the minister has been following the daily papers recently, he will know that there have been a few good articles in there about the sale of land to nonresident foreigners and what it is actually doing to communities in Ontario. I refer to an article that appeared on Thursday, December 9, in the Globe and Mail, "Land Sales to Foreigners Raise Ontario Farm Fears."

This article states in part: "Sales of farms to absentee foreign owners are making some Ontario farm leaders afraid for their communities. John Nesbit, a director of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, said in an interview that more Ontario land is likely to go into foreign hands this winter as more farmers run into financial trouble because of low commodity prices and high interest rates.

"A neighbour of his is an immigrant from Austria who has bought more than 4,000 acres of farm land with several European partners in two western Ontario townships in the past two years. But Helmut Sieber" -- and I will say that Helmut Sieber has kind of taken over from a chap by the name of Tiko, who was acting on behalf of a large number of these foreign owners -- "president of Algonquin Farms Ltd., which has purchased the land, insists that he is a farmer and the land will stay in farming."

What a strange statement to make: that because somebody happens to invest in land, whether it be a foreign owner or whoever it is, the land is going to stay in farming. Sure, we know it is going to stay in farming, but that is not the whole point of the matter.

"Mr. Nesbit said, 'Nobody else around here can get the money to buy a farm, so when a guy gets into a bind, maybe he is their only salvation." In other words, he -- meaning Mr. Sieber -- is the one who is going to buy this land from the farmers who are in trouble to transfer to a foreign investor who has never even seen the land. All he is interested in is speculating in that land.

Isn't it a sad commentary to hear that because our farmers cannot make it, because they do not feel that the programs are in place for them to capitalize on in order to stay on the farm, as they are in other provinces -- and I again draw to your attention the recently announced program in Saskatchewan, a $350,000 loan to each individual farmer who qualifies at an interest rate of eight per cent; and I know that Saskatchewan is just as interested as you are in getting a tripartite stabilization program. But the minister and I know that program will not trigger in for at least a year if he gets the blessings of the federal minister. For all we know, it could be two, three or four years down the road.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Are you helping us with that? Have you spoken to him about that?

Mr. Riddell: I certainly have. I am behind you on that score. Do not ever think I am not.

I think it is a sad commentary when here we have somebody admitting our farmers are in trouble and the only way they can get out is to sell to somebody like Mr. Sieber, who is buying their land and giving them a price so he can then turn it over to a nonresident foreign owner.

"Research by the Ontario Liberal Party has shown pockets of foreign ownership in the Ottawa area, northern Ontario and near Windsor." Most of our work I must say has been in the Huron, Bruce and Grey county areas.

"In the short term it isn't that much of a problem, but if large acreages keep going to foreign absentee owners, then what happens to the viability of the community once the original farmers move out?' Merle Gunby, an executive member of the agriculture federation for Huron county, said in an interview. 'What happens to the schools and the churches and the stores in these small places?'

"Farmers in Morris township in Huron county and in Bruce township in Bruce county, where about five per cent of the land is now foreign-owned" -- that is a little different from the minister's one per cent.

Here I have to come back to his statement where he said he cannot rely on percentages. When I got up and said that the percentage of the total provincial budget in this province devoted to agriculture amounts to something like only one per cent, he said, "It is unfair to use percentages; you cannot do it."

I say it is unfair to use percentages in connection with the foreign ownership of land because a lot of this buying is concentrated in a few areas in Ontario. Here we have in three counties an estimate of about five per cent of the land which is now foreign-owned.

I have a map of Morris township and I have outlined in black all the farms that have been sold to nonresident foreign owners. It would appear from that map that almost 40 per cent of the farm land in Morris township has been sold to foreign investors. I will run off a copy of that map and send it over to the minister to let him have a look at it.

The farmers in those areas where five per cent of the land is now foreign-owned, according to the article, do not know who their neighbours are, since Mr. Seiber's group bought the farms in several complicated deals involving numbered companies which have since been amalgamated.

"Prospective young farmers say it is difficult to buy land because the Germans and Austrians consistently pay $100 to $500 more an acre than Canadians can afford."

At one time they paid more than that. I can well recall one Sunday a car drove up to my farm. It was a realtor from London. He had a chap from Belgium in the back seat who could not make himself understood all that well. I was able to understand enough to know he was out looking for land. He wanted to buy my farm. Then he asked if I knew of other farms in the area he might possibly buy.

I asked him what price he was prepared to pay. I wanted to get all the information I could. Believe me, it was as much as $500 to $1,000 more than local farmers were prepared to pay for the land in the area.

I told him my farm was not for sale and, if it was, it would be sold to the two young lads down the road who are helping me on my farm, graduates of agricultural colleges who dearly want to get into farming but have not been able to match the price the nonresident foreign owners are paying for the land.

I told him if my farm was for sale it would go to those lads and if I did know of acreages for sale in the area I certainly would not tell him. I told him I was totally against nonresident foreign ownership of land in this country.

I think I also indicated to the minister that I asked the Germans why they were so interested in our land when I was over with a select committee a few years ago. They told me plainly and clearly, "We want to get our money out of a country that has a fair bit of instability and get our money into a country where we know there is stability and security."

Thank heaven we live in that kind of a country. But they are not really interested in farming the land. They are interested in getting their money invested in something they know will be relatively secure.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of supply reported progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce the business for the first three days of next week.

On Monday, December 13, in the afternoon and evening this House will, in committee of the whole House, discuss Bill 179 with a final division at 10:15 p.m. on a 10-minute bell.

On Tuesday, December 14, in the afternoon we will consider the no-confidence motion of the New Democratic Party with a division at 5:50 p.m. on a five-minute bell. In the evening, we will debate on the report stage of Bill 179, which is to conclude at 10:15 p.m. on a 10-minute bell, if a division is necessary.

On Wednesday, December 15, in the afternoon we will deal with third reading of Bill 179 with a division, if necessary, at 5:45 p.m. on a 10-minute bell.

Mr. McClellan: If necessary?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I always like to allow for all exigencies.

Mr. McClellan: We can assure you there will be a division.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Therefore I will remove "if necessary" and say it will conclude with a division at 5:45 p.m. on Wednesday, December 15, on a 10-minute bell. The House will not sit Wednesday evening. However, on Wednesday morning the usual three committees may sit -- justice, general government and resources development.

On Monday, I will have a further business statement dealing with Thursday, at which time we will consider legislation. I will announce the exact legislation on Monday. That means on Thursday we will be dealing with legislation and private members' business.

On Friday, of course, we will continue the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

The House adjourned at 1:03 p.m.

10 décembre 1982