Journal des débats 1984-oct-11 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I have given notice to the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Peterson) that I intended to raise my point this afternoon, and I gave notice to you, sir.

It concerns the Queen's Park riding report of the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri), which I would remind you is a document that is paid for as a result of our privileges as members, is financed by the taxpayers of Ontario, is intended as a report from a member and is not intended to be used for partisan purposes of any kind.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: Just wait. I suggest, in all sincerity, that the members wait for what has to be said.

Half the report is in English and half is in Italian. I am going to read to you a page --

Mr. Bradley: We have read some of your reports.

Mr. Rae: I wish the honourable member would wait and listen.

Mr. Bradley: No, we have read some of your junk.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: As I say, if this were a question of argumentation, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you I would not be raising it. If you will just allow me to read a translation of the Italian section, it is the first section entitled "Politics and Schools." I am quoting from the translation:

"It was with reluctance and always pushed by members of the opposition party that the Premier has finally given to the Catholic schools financial assistance -- grants -- after 100 years of discrimination. Let us remember that the battle has to continue to preserve the moral and religious influence of the church in our schools, to retain the right to discard teachers who are not Catholic and who are not in a state of grace, and to preserve the spiritual side of teaching.

"The third party -- NDP -- that has as a goal one school system, without religion and without the possibility of a public Catholic teaching, absolutely cannot merit the support of men and women faithful to the principles of the Mother Church."

The next section is entitled "OHIP and Abortion." It reads as follows:

"The Ontario government finances abortion through OHIP, the hospital insurance. The NDP, at its convention, has endorsed the concept of abortion clinics as proposed by Morgentaler, financed by public funds. Not even the Conservatives, who are mostly Protestant or atheist, have ever had the temerity to adopt such a platform. A vote for the socialists represents a vote for 55,000 murders a year in Canada. Our policy has been and remains that of allowing abortions financed through OHIP only when the health of the mother is in danger. This healthy and religious moral principle must guide your choice."

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise you that the statement with respect to the New Democratic Party on the question of support for the separate school system of Ontario is a complete and utter misrepresentation of the politics, policies and history of the New Democratic Party. It is not simply a question of argumentation, it is a complete and utter misrepresentation. It bears no resemblance whatsover to the truth or the facts.

I suggest to you, sir, that there has to be some remedy for members who are, frankly, defamed by statements such as those made by the member for Yorkview in this document.

There are absolutely no grounds for this statement. There is absolutely no foundation for this statement. Every member sitting in this House knows that. Every member in this House who was here the day the Premier (Mr. Davis) announced his policy knows who it was who stood up because our party wanted to join in the statement and wanted to get that statement on the record. Everyone knows the policy of this party that was passed in 1971. Everyone knows the positions that have been taken by Donald C. MacDonald, Stephen Lewis, Michael Cassidy and myself and every single member of the New Democratic Party caucus.

I want to suggest that it is an abuse of the privileges of a member to put out information, paid for by the taxpayers of this province, that is a complete and utter misstatement and abuse of members of any party.

If I may suggest -- and I cannot remember a time in my public life when I have felt as strongly about something as this -- to see in a statement financed by the taxpayers of Ontario and put out by a member of this Legislature that our party absolutely cannot merit the support of men and women faithful to the principles of the Mother Church is an abomination.

I ask you, sir, what remedy one can possibly take in order to respond to this kind of an abomination? We are all prepared in public life to put up with argument, we are all prepared to have a debate, we are all prepared to be called names, but to have this kind of statement going out, paid for by the taxpayers, an official document of the Legislature, a complete and utter misstatement of the facts is something which I call on you, sir, to remedy. There has to be some kind of remedy.

I suggest, sir, it should be a very severe remedy indeed. This document has gone to every elector and every householder in the riding of Yorkview. It is apparently an official document with his picture on the front and a statement from the Leader of the Opposition in Italian on the back. It is just one page after this remark about politics and schools. I ask you, sir, what kind of remedy do we have?

I can tell you, sir, that we are not prepared to put up with this any longer. That kind of conduct from a member is completely unacceptable to us and I would think in all fairness it has to be seen as unacceptable to every single member in this House. There cannot be any justification for somebody to resort to that kind of conduct, those kinds of remarks and those kinds of misstatements. It is a complete and total misrepresentation and we are simply not going to accept it.

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I beg leave to reply to the leader of the third party. I am quite flattered by the fact that he would make such an extensive study of my report. I simply wish to stand in my place, Mr. Speaker, and indicate to you and to this House that while the statements which I made are somewhat targeted, that party is the one that has refined the art of targeting to new heights.

I would like to say further, not in my defence but as a general statement, that these are personal statements attributable to me and that I stand by them and I will be glad to defend them in whatever appropriate forum.

2:10 p.m.

I simply wish to say that party shows some false and very pretentious irateness when its council advises its candidates to spread exactly this type of message, albeit unofficial, in the riding and then expects those of us who are engaged in the political process to sit idly by and not use those legitimate powers that have been made available to us through this assembly to spread our message.

I regret the statements are excessively targeted. They must be seen in the light of the people to whom they are addressed. I feel a special grief for those people and I will defend them.

Mr. Rae: They are lies. They are nothing but lies. They are a complete misrepresentation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Quite obviously I have not seen the document. I would like to have a copy of it so I may peruse it and see just what it does say.

As a general statement, however -- and I thought we had made this abundantly clear -- those services provided to members of this Legislature and paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario are not to be used in any way in a partisan or political manner.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As far as I am concerned, this is a serious matter. It is something I have brought to the attention of the Board of Internal Economy on past occasions. I will bring this matter to the attention of the board and all the representatives of all the interested parties at the next board meeting on Monday.

The time has come when we are either going to abide by the guidelines or do without these services. Thank you.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear I am not talking about material that is politically argumentative. I am talking about material that is defamatory and completely and grossly untrue. I have never seen a statement in any other newsletter that rivals this. I have never seen such a statement. It is completely false. It is an utter falsehood.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member will please resume his seat. I know exactly what you are saying, but as I said before, I have not had time to read it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Premier and Minister responsible for Women's Issues about his notes for an address and speech yesterday to the Canadian Club. It is a carbon copy of several other speeches he has given on the same subject in the past little while.

There were some veiled threats to the private sector about their actions concerning affirmative action. He also said, and I am quoting his own words, that "the Ontario government is recommending every company implement its own version because it is the fair and equitable thing to do and because it produces results."

Would the minister be good enough to stand in this Legislature and tell us how many women have acceded to the inner corridors of power in the government? How many female deputy ministers does he have? How many female assistant deputy ministers does he have? What is the government's record?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am flattered the leader of the official opposition makes reference to my speech yesterday at the Canadian Club. I do not know whether he has had an opportunity to read it because certainly what we were talking about there is something I am sure he would embrace. That is the concept of equality.

We talked in terms of equality on at least two fronts: about personal security, which would provide an opportunity to talk about family violence and the unfortunate victims of that type of unacceptable behaviour; and we talked about equality in the work places of Ontario, which provides us with an opportunity to talk about the whole question of access to employment and opportunities for advancement within employment.

It also provided me with an opportunity at that time to talk about the government's affirmative action program, in which I am sure all members of the Legislature would take some pride. Over the last 10 years, with the leadership of some dedicated people, we have set some very positive goals and targets with respect to the advancement of women in the public service. It is a record worthy of emulation by any private sector employer.

As the honourable member will know if he looks at the last annual report of the women crown employees office, all those matters are documented. It is quite clearly set out in every part. We have established targets in many areas where women have been underrepresented, and we have reached those targets many years ahead of time.

The record of the government is clear with respect to these various areas of responsibility and is contained in the report of the women crown employees office, which was tabled in this House.

Mr. Peterson: I asked the minister a very specific question about how many women deputy ministers and how many women assistant deputy ministers there are. Does he know the answer to that question? After all, that is the highest power in the public service. If he was sincere in his statements, and if there was even a rough match between the performance and the rhetoric he provides, he would obviously be making progress in that regard.

My question to the minister specifically is, what is his record? How many women deputy ministers and how many women assistant deputy ministers does he have?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Although the question is very specific with respect to two areas of responsibility, I think the Leader of the Opposition does the whole affirmative action program here a great disservice. I pointed, and he must see it in context, to the evolutionary program that has been developed over a period of time and that has provided us with an opportunity to establish practical goals and targets with respect to all categories of employment in the public service. We have established those goals in an honest attempt to make sure that there has been some advancement in that area.

The management module from which many of these appointments would be drawn has reached that target 16 years ahead of the targeted time, which shows something of the devotion of those who have been involved. It has to be seen as tremendous progress in the various levels from which senior management positions are drawn.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, we had an exchange about this question of affirmative action many times in the last session. Could the Deputy Premier explain why the so-called voluntary affirmative action remains a secret in terms of which companies are involved and exactly what targets they are setting? Why is the program that he has established such a well-kept secret?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have appreciated having these questions from time to time and I was motivated, on the basis of the exchanges in the House, to spend most of the summer consulting with a number of presidents and chief executive officers of large firms in Ontario. In fact, I completed two more sets of such meetings today.

I have come away from those discussions saying that perhaps we do not have all the information we should have to tell a more complete and fairer story with respect to developments in so far as equality of access to and advancement in the work place are concerned. I think many of the private companies themselves realize it is about time they told their stories and shared this information.

We were respecting a certain degree of confidentiality that we undertook to maintain in getting this information through our consultative service. I said I did not think that was going to be satisfactory. I said I thought the questions that were being raised with respect to what was going on in the private sector were legitimate questions and that, if there was a positive story to be told, it should be told. I have used those consultations, which have been extensive and have been with many people, to indicate that we would at least like ample evidence that the government's record is being matched in the private sector.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is obviously embarrassed to be specific about this situation because the specifics are very embarrassing for him and come nowhere near matching his rhetoric.

Would he not agree with me that, according to our quick survey through the telephone book this morning, there is one woman deputy minister, a deputy provincial secretary, and that two out of 51 assistant deputy ministers are women? Would he not agree with me that there are 44 women executives compared to 598 men and that 456 men earned more than $59,000 in the public service while only 63 women did?

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I am giving him the facts he is not aware of, Mr. Speaker, even though he is the minister responsible.

About 71 per cent of the women in Ontario's public service earned under $21,000, but 75 per cent of the men earned over that amount of money.

Would the minister not agree that he has to clean up his own house before he can lecture or threaten other people?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the official opposition reminds me, it would be fairly ineffective to be dealing in the private sector without making sure there were some positive initiatives being implemented as far as the public sector was concerned. I accept that. Indeed, I would remind him, in all fairness, if he would review the record of the past 10 years, he would come to some conclusions that might differ from the tone of his question.

There are, in fact. 63 women in the executive compensation plan within the public service. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) overlooks the chairman of the Civil Service Commission, who holds the rank of a deputy minister. In addition to the Deputy Provincial Secretary for Justice, there are three assistant deputy ministers who are women and there is a host of directors and executive directors, which illustrates the point I am trying to make in answer to the supplementary question.

We have been building over this period and we are in a very strong position to see even further expansion of this because of the work that has been done by very dedicated people over this time.

Mr. Peterson: If I were going to ask the minister another question, I would ask him how many times he is going to give the same speech again, trying to persuade people he is doing something serious. But I will not ask him that.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to the Thom commission.

Is the minister aware that about 15 minutes after the tenants' umbrella group from Metro pulled out of the phase 2 hearing of the Thom commission, the counsel for that hearing, Don Jack, was on the phone to the Federation of Ottawa-Carleton Tenants Associations offering it $25,000 to participate in the proceeding, obviously trying to salvage this discredited inquiry?

Does the minister approve of that kind of behaviour? Is he now going to search out various groups and pay them to appear and try to give some semblance of respectability to that commission inquiry, or is he going to do the humane thing and put it out of its misery now?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware whether the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition is factual. I will certainly make inquiries. As this House knows, the commission of inquiry is in charge of its own operations. I will certainly look into that aspect of things.

I must say personally, though, that Mr. Thom decided on his own -- and I think quite properly -- to divide the study into two phases.

Phase 1 was to look at requirements the government might consider as it continues with the process of supporting rent control in the province and trying to make it as equitable and fair as possible. That is what he has just completed and, as I say, I expect that report will be released shortly without any delay.

Phase 2 had a somewhat broader mandate and one I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition would have supported. For example, the second phase will be looking at tasks such as determination of the particular objectives of rent regulation; consideration of what alternative methods of rent regulation may be adopted to achieve those objectives; consideration of the method of implementing alternatives under consideration; as well as looking at the issue of what options governments might look at with respect to housing in a range that is affordable for all people.

I think those are very fundamental and important considerations that the second phase is looking at. I would hope parties who have an interest in these issues will take part. Certainly, Mr. Thom has indicated his belief that these are matters the government should receive some advice about or some comment on.

With respect to the other matter the member raised, I will certainly look into it.

Mr. Peterson: The minister must be aware, as the minister responsible for appointing this commission to try to get himself out of a dilemma and defer dealing with these questions, that the commission has now been thoroughly discredited. The Federation of Ottawa-Carleton Tenants Associations has turned down this $25,000 offer and is not going to appear at the Thom commission.

Now we have the spectacle that, because of the general lack of faith in the minister's inquiry, the major tenant groups in this province are not going to participate, so he will not have the benefit of their opinion. Surely that should say to him as the minister, should be additional proof at the very least, that this commission has been discredited and he is using it as an excuse for inaction that is no longer valid.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I ask the minister again, why not put it out of its misery before he and the commission go through further embarrassment, as is inevitably going to happen.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The government and certainly this minister feel no embarrassment whatever with respect to the Thom commission. Indeed, I have clearly stated my views on it. I would think the Leader of the Opposition would have some fundamental interest in the matters that are being considered by Mr. Thom in phase 2.

I hope there will be more public participation in it. Certainly the public is interested in what is going on there, and I would think this Legislature should be interested in those considerations, transcripts of which will be available for everyone to consider and comment on. I think the process should continue.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask whether the minister could review the first edition of yesterday's Sun under the byline of Steve Payne. I am tentative about my question because the story was not in the second edition of the Sun, as I understand it. I would like to ask him to investigate whether or not, when asked about the pullout of the tenants, Commissioner Thom made certain derogatory remarks, to put it mildly, about those same tenants.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of that story; I did not read it. I would expect that it would not be Commissioner Thom's way to make derogatory remarks about parties. From what I understand, he has had a great deal of respect for and interest in the particular parties.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, some two years ago the minister very sincerely gave his support, as I recall, to the establishment of a rent registry in this province. Now it has been discussed for some time, but we have not seen him follow through in that regard.

Would the minister not agree now, given the delays with the Thom commission and the questions of where the reports are, who has and has not read them, who is proofing them, when we will get them and all the confusion, that this at least, a policy to which he has given some support personally, should be implemented? It is two years old now. Why not move immediately on it? I do not know the cost of establishing it. Probably the minister does not either, but it is probably less than the whole price of the Thom commission, which is leading us nowhere at the present time. Why can we not use those moneys to establish that rent registry?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: This is one of the issues that I understand will be addressed in the Thom report. When it is, then it will be a matter for the government to consider and make recommendations to this House on.

2:30 p.m.

SPENDING ON INFORMATION SERVICES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague), I have a question for the Deputy Premier. It concerns the rather bizarre fact that, while the recent report of the public accounts shows that government spending on programs was less than the amount estimated, the amount for information services showed a seven per cent overrun.

In some ministries there was a very extensive overrun for information services. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food was up 22 per cent; the Ministry of the Attorney General had an overrun of 23 per cent; the Ministry of Correctional Services had an overrun of 19 per cent; the Ministry of Industry and Trade had an overrun of 59 per cent; the Ministry of Natural Resources had an overrun of 38 per cent, more than $1.5 million above what was originally budgeted for information services, and so on and so on. Even the budget in the department of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), who has been parading himself as such a great representative of restraint, showed a 15 per cent overrun in comparison with the original estimates.

Can the Deputy Premier explain this discrepancy? Can he explain why it is so true of information services?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, obviously there may be some special circumstances that could be included in any answer for any particular ministry. I think the most effective way to elicit that type of information has always been in my career here to go to estimates. The member will find that ministers present themselves before the estimates committees, and the whole budget is then up for review.

I might just mention one. For instance, the member makes some reference to my colleague the Treasurer. It is my understanding that his estimates have not yet been called. I suppose I could go through all the others to the extent that the member has named them, but I think all that information is available.

The difficulty comes in making these generalized statements. That does not really provide us with an opportunity to speak to what might be special circumstances that might explain those particular totals. I am sure each minister would welcome the opportunity of providing that type of information to the member.

Mr. Rae: The minister is in the wrong year. I think he has missed the point. What the figures show is that the estimates process is a bit of a farce because what it shows is that the figures that are put before the members in estimates are not the figures that turn out to be the actual amounts spent in the ministry's concern.

Rather than proving the minister's point, they completely contradict it. What these figures demonstrate is that the estimates process as it currently exists is simply avoided by many ministers, who then go around the whole estimates process, go to Management Board and get the extra authorization for amounts well above and beyond what was originally budgeted for information services.

We have been watching all the great ads on television about how the Ministry of Natural Resources plants trees and so on. Can the minister explain -- $3.7 million was the figure that was to be debated in the estimates; $5.2 million was the figure that was actually spent -- how the ministries justify those kinds of overruns?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think the leader of the third party underestimates his ability to extract that type of information in this whole process. He is surely not trying to suggest that the process does not provide him with the opportunity of presenting those facts and obtaining the answers to the questions which he has the right to ask.

I hope the leader of the third party is not suggesting that we do not have some responsibilities to make sure that the public we serve has the information it needs with respect to a number of these very important programs as they are related to the delivery of those programs.

I am quite satisfied that if he really wants that information he will get it. In the briefing books for estimates and in all the material that is made available at the time, I think there is no question that last year's estimated figures and actual expenditures are all spelled out there as well, which provides information for his question.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, why would the Deputy Premier not live up to his reputation of succinct and direct answers and simply tell the House that his colleagues in the ministry thought there was going to be an election and they have been spending money promoting their ministries and themselves for electoral purposes, just as the Tory party has been doing for the last 40 years? Why can he not just tell the House that is the cause of the overrun? There is no other cause.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the Deputy Premier could not include that in any succinct answer is that the Deputy Premier for 21 years in this House has always told the truth.

Mr. Nixon: But not the whole truth.

Mr. Rae: I just think the Deputy Premier has to come up with a better answer than he has done so far in explaining a very simple discrepancy. When one looks at programs, one finds the government has managed to spend less than was estimated. In that sense the estimates themselves were misleading. If we thought so much money was being spent on a program by the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) or the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), we found less money was spent, but in one particular area we found this was not true.

We found there was a significant overrun in some departments, for example, an overrun in the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation as high as 94 per cent. Budgeted at $433,600, it came out at $839,652. The budget was practically twice as high as the amount that was originally estimated. Can the minister please explain to us in simple language how that kind of mistake could have been made in department after department after department?

Hon. Mr. Welch: With all due respect, I thought we made the point quite clear that it would be on a ministry-by-ministry basis. I am sure there are explanations for any particular ministry's expenditures. Information is very important and it is essential that these ministries communicate with the larger constituency. No doubt there is some very reasonable explanation with regard to the particular ministries to which the member made reference. Why does he not drop in at estimates? I am sure they would be very happy to have him.

TAX BURDEN

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman). His material is still on his desk and I was hoping he would stay, but he appears to have gone. I know he is busy and has many phone calls to make.

In the absence of the Treasurer, I will ask a question to another senior economic minister, who I know will be interested in this question. That is the Minister of Industry and Trade, who I see is joking with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). I am sure they have got a lot to joke about these days.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: He seems to have recovered almost totally. He looks a lot younger than he did even last week. I would like to ask the minister this simple question. In his May budget -- and I assume he was speaking for the minister and for the government -- the Treasurer stated that a major tax increase would undermine activity and confidence.

As the minister will know, last week the federal Minister of Finance imposed a one per cent increase in the federal sales tax, which will mean an increase in payment of between $60 and $70 per household per year. The Canadian Tax Foundation says it could be an increase in revenue of between $1 billion and $2 billion. Informetrica reports it is going to cost 4,200 jobs in one year across Canada, which means 1,200 jobs in one year in Ontario.

I would like to ask the minister how he feels about that increase in the federal sales tax. Can he please make some comments with respect to changes in Ontario's tax arrangements which would offset the effect of the tax increase in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, to ask me about taxes in another jurisdiction makes it difficult for me to answer.

Mr. Kerrio: Oh, come on, you are kissing cousins.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: To be accurate, with respect to the posing of the member's question, the tax was imposed by a Liberal government; it was not imposed by a Conservative government. Had there been a reduction in tax imposed by that Liberal government effective that date and had we not lived up to it, all whatever would have broken loose. Given all that, of course, I am not happy as the Minister of Industry and Trade, nor was I in my previous job as Treasurer, ever seeing tax increases.

I am not privy to the state of the economy of this country, save to say that after 16 federal Trudeau years our deficit is at least twice as bad per capita as the American deficit. I certainly do not envy Mr. Wilson the tremendous task given to him. Perhaps the kindest thing he can be doing to us now, in terms of the future of jobs for the people of this country, is making sure our deficits do not get worse.

Mr. Rae: The overwhelming evidence is that the government of Ontario will receive a windfall benefit of somewhere around $50 million in its own sales tax revenue, since the government's sales tax revenue is a tax upon tax. It is going to be passed on through what the larger manufacturers do in terms of the pattern that has been established in the past.

I would like to ask the minister whether he made any representations to Ottawa with respect to the imposition of this tax, which is grossly unfair to the Ontario taxpayer and which is only going to result in a slowing down of the Ontario economy.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, I did not. I do not know whether my friend the Treasurer, who would be the more appropriate minister, has done so. The member should pose that question to him. The fact remains that the third party would have spending for ever without any reference to deficit or the effect of deficit. This party has always believed in fiscal integrity, and I suspect a first small step towards fiscal integrity is going on in Ottawa now.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, is the Treasurer not aware that his federal colleagues, his political cousins, called this tax a step towards recession and still imposed it? Perhaps he will agree that the reason he did not object is that it is an additional windfall to the Treasury of Ontario, since our sales tax is applied on the increased cost of cigarettes, liquor and all the other things that fall in the ambit of the federal increase. Does the minister not agree that the windfall accrues to the Treasury of Ontario and that is why he did not object? It was money from heaven.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. When it comes to sales tax, Ontario and the federal government have totally different political problems. I am sure the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk knows it. By whatever grand design, the federal government never shows its sales tax. The average guy does not know what federal sales tax is collected.

Mr. Nixon: But you put the tax on their tax.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Our tax is not illegal.

Mr. J. A. Reed: It is certainly immoral.

Hon. Mr. Norton: How would the honourable member know?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I do not want the minister to carry the can for the Treasurer as I am sure, given the changed circumstances this week, that minister will be very reluctant to do that himself. Does the minister not think it fair that the Ontario sales tax credit should be enriched sufficiently to offset the effect in Ontario of this very unfair tax increase to consumers and manufacturers? Does he not think that is the fair thing to do?

Second, will he please guarantee that the Inflation Restraint Board will keep an eye on any industry profit-taking under the concealment of this tax? He knows that many times big industries pass on their own price increases hidden and rolled into such tax increases. Will he have the Inflation Restraint Board have a look at the increases and roll them back if anything unfair is going on?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The latter is a projection of fact that is not likely to happen with the federal sales tax or the Ontario sales tax, because the tax is charged on the price the industries set. I do not think there is a great risk of that happening, because we have a very price-conscious market and many companies say it is the market that keeps their prices in line, not their insatiable desire for profits.

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I noticed a minute ago the Minister of Health seemed awfully anxious to answer questions this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Ask him one.

Mr. Sweeney: Perhaps we should ask him one just to give him the opportunity.

The Minister of Health will be aware that as of this December, the War Amputations of Canada will be discontinuing its Paylimb program, a program under which it has paid out in the neighbourhood of $500,000 each year since 1980.

The minister will also be aware that his own assistive devices program advisory committee has recommended that phase 2 of this program should be implemented, that adults as well as children be assisted by the provincial Treasury.

Given the confluence of these two issues, can the minister indicate to us today precisely what he plans to do?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult for me to indicate at this point precisely what I propose to do other than in process terms. I have had an opportunity to review the results of the assessment of the existing program. I have also had an opportunity to review with staff some of the recommendations to the ministry that were developed internally, as well as some of the options developed by staff at my request.

I have narrowed the options to what I would describe as the preferred options or recommendations I will now take forward to my colleagues for their consideration. I do not yet know what the outcome of that will be, but in terms of the time frame, I think it is considerably closer to a decision than was the case when questions were raised with me in the spring.

Mr. Sweeney: I have to wonder whether the minister is aware of the importance of the time factor. Here we are talking of one source, War Amps, that has indicated it is cutting its program off as of this December. The most recent issue of Advocate from the Ontario March of Dimes indicates it is becoming financially onerous for them to continue supporting so many people and points out that the new technologies with respect to assistive devices simply are not being used by people because they cannot afford them.

Of a specific nature, a case was brought to my attention just a few days ago of an older person who has to pay $525 out of his own pocket. He is retired, elderly, living on basic income and it is costing him $50 a month. He says he simply cannot afford it.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sweeney: I guess the point we have to make to the minister is that the time factor is becoming more and more critical, that the outside agencies that have been doing this job simply cannot continue to do it and that as a result, Ontario's disabled citizens are not able to have these devices which enable them to live their lives more fully.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Obviously, I am concerned about the issues as they relate to timing. Also, I am not entirely a babe in the woods when it comes to recognizing that maybe, from time to time, certain announcements may be made for strategic reasons.

I would hope any organization that has been involved, with public support, in the provision of assistance to some of the individuals who are in need of assistance with prosthetic devices would not withdraw the support in some peremptory fashion to try to precipitate an earlier decision when they know the matter is actively being considered now with a view to a resolution. Surely, the contributions that the public has been making to those organizations has been for the purpose of maintaining that support.

ACTIVITIES OF POLICE

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. I raised this matter on April 27, again on May 13 and May 22, and again on June 22 with himself or with the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor), about the case of William Franklin Baker. It was on April 24, 1984, that his agent, Assistant Crown Attorney Watson, stood in the court and in a very laconic way simply said charges were being withdrawn because there was reason to doubt the veracity of the confession.

I would like the Attorney General to report to the House the result of the investigation with respect to the circumstances surrounding the arrest, detention and subsequent discharge of Mr. Baker.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will also recall, and I think this is of importance to all members of the House, that the counsel for Mr. Baker had some very complimentary remarks to state about the role of the crown attorney's office in the withdrawing of that particular prosecution. I know the member for Riverdale is well aware of that fact.

In so far as the investigation is concerned, my recollection is that the last time I addressed this issue I indicated to the member for Riverdale that there was a very comprehensive Ontario Provincial Police investigation going on into this matter. I cannot advise the members of the House as to whether that investigation has been completed other than to state that to the best of my knowledge, it has not been completed.

It may be that the Solicitor General has more up-to-date information and could add to the incomplete information I obviously have at present.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I received the report of the completed investigation yesterday, but the office has not read it. It was just delivered yesterday.

Mr. Renwick: We are certainly making progress. Will the minister table the report in the House this afternoon so the members will have the opportunity to read it at the same time that he reads the report?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: No.

2:50 p.m.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the Treasurer. With the release of the employment statistics last Friday, indicating that youth unemployment has jumped by 2.7 per cent in the last month, can the minister indicate why his bold new program to foster youth employment, announced in the budget last May, has been such an abject failure?

When are we going to hear in this House of some sorts of programs and commitments of public money which are going to come to the assistance of the 156,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 who are currently unemployed and seeking employment in this province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the youth unemployment rate, we should try to keep in perspective the fact that the youth unemployment rate is significantly lower than last year's. While we had an unusually quick recovery in that rate earlier this summer -- I believe it dropped as low as 12.2 per cent, which was relatively good -- I did indicate at that time that it probably would moderate back up. Although it has moderated back up, it remains well below last year's average and the averages for the previous years.

What does that tell us? First, it tells us that the programs we have undertaken over the last couple of years specific to youth and in terms of the economy in general must have been having some impact. We have figures that are much better than those of the rest of Canada and, for that matter, many other jurisdictions.

Second, with regard to our youth programs, I know the honourable member recalls that the budget last May indicated these programs would not impact significantly this summer and fall; they would maintain the traditional level of short-term youth employment programs. We did that, and that is reflected in the figures. In terms of assessing the impact of our youth programs -- and I still think they will be exceptionally strong and will have a great impact -- it will be more than a couple of months and perhaps as much as a year before we can assess their full impact.

I should add one other thing. As I indicated from day one, some of those programs will prove to be very successful; others will not. As we have experience with those programs, we will adjust them and flow funds to the ones that have gone well and terminate the ones that have not. Right now, we are gratified with the progress to date.

Mr. Nixon: We really cannot refer to these as new programs; they have been in operation for five months. When questioned in the spring session, the Treasurer indicated, "It takes some time to get a program up and running." He is saying the same thing now as he said then.

He has employed, with much fanfare, Ken Dryden, a very fine Canadian -- we are fortunate to have him -- but really hung him out to dry, because the programs are inadequate and inadequately funded. He knows his special program for youth tourism, which was supposed to be operating this summer and fall, has just barely got off the ground, and even consultations were delayed until August.

Surely the Treasurer must realize that having 156,000 of these unemployed young people concerns every member of this Legislature. We are in session; let the minister tell us what to do as far as his programs are concerned to make them work. At present, they are failures.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know we will not agree on this, but I must say that one cannot declare them to be failures. They are just being implemented, and from the reception we are getting through the youth employment counselling centres and, might I say, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, all indications are that there is a huge take-up.

Mr. Wrye: Surprise, surprise.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will tell all the chambers of commerce that the honourable member looks askance at them, but I will bet he does not say that to them when he meets with them.

If my friend thinks back to the programs and reflects upon the reality that the best programs will be those that take a lot of private sector involvement and realizes the response of the private sector is key to solving the unemployment problem relating to 150,000 young people, he will see the importance of running these programs they way they are being run.

Mr. Nixon: The Treasurer said it was a bold new initiative.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I might add that Ken Dryden, whom the member acknowledged to be a very capable person, does not report to us that the programs are inadequate. He does not report to us that they are underfunded. He thinks they are quite good programs and is satisfied with the progress to date.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister recalls replying to me on June 22 that by September 1 the youth employment programs would have created 100,000 jobs. Was he misinformed at that time or was he misinforming the House?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Neither, Mr. Speaker.

AMATEUR HOCKEY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Is the minister aware of the new rules that were adopted by the Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League? Let me quote: "The rules in effect for two weeks would impose a match penalty with a two-game suspension to anyone hitting or starting a fight after the whistle. They would also cover the use of undue force in cross-checking, charging into the boards and a two-handed stick slash even if there was no contact." Is the minister aware that after two weeks, the MTHL withdrew those rules?

I also wonder whether he is aware that Phil Vitale, who was responsible in some large way over the past 23 years, has resigned his post with the MTHL for the following reason: "I cannot work under these circumstances. I feel there is a totally different approach to minor hockey now. There is a lot of confusion and manipulation in general by the MTHL board."

I am sure the minister will agree that it was the manipulation by some of the hockey moguls that killed the Hockey Ontario Development Committee.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Martel: Is the minister prepared to establish a body that represents all facets of hockey so that no one group, such as the Ontario Hockey Association, will have the ability through its affiliates to control the new body? Will he ensure there are new young people there, not the hockey moguls who have continued to keep hockey the way it has been for the past number of years?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the member for Sudbury East is an echo of the question he raised Tuesday in which he referred to some rule changes in the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association. The reply today is going to be quite similar to that on Tuesday.

I do not see this ministry or this government setting down the detailed rules on bodychecking, violence and the whole thing in hockey. However, what I did say and what I want to repeat and reinforce today is that we are right now in the midst of setting up an organization that is going to help organized hockey to run its own store, but to run it in a way that is going to reduce some of the violent acts that are taking place at present and resulting in injuries.

As I said Tuesday, I am in agreement to a large degree with the member for Sudbury East, but I am not going to stand here and commit this government to set down in detail all the rules to govern hockey games. However, we will set up an instrument, and he knows full well we are working diligently on doing exactly that.

Mr. Martel: I never even asked the minister to talk about the rules. I never even mentioned the bloody rules. I asked him three distinct questions and he has ignored them all. However, let me ask him another. Maybe he will try one that he can answer. This has come out since my question on Tuesday. I will try to give him an easy one.

I wonder whether the minister is aware of the statement by Terry Adair, who coaches a North Toronto juvenile age team, who said: "The rules were working. Now there have been four major injuries in the North Toronto MTHL teams that would have resulted in a five-minute major and a minimum of a two-game suspension. The importance of cleaning up juvenile hockey was impressed upon us at the first coaches' meeting this year. Where has the importance gone in two short weeks?"

Will the minister obtain for this Legislature the details of those four major accidents that have occurred since this league -- after two weeks of having rules which apparently saw too many penalties -- threw the rules out? Will he find out how those four youngsters were hurt, the severity of the injuries and all the circumstances, and bring this material back to the Legislature?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I will certainly look into these incidents and, where appropriate, I will bring the information back to this Legislature.

I hope the member for Sudbury East will give us at least two weeks to respond to the larger question, and that is what we are going to do about establishing an organization that is going to bring about greater control in amateur hockey in this province. I am confident we will come up with a satisfactory answer and a solution.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT FUNDING

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs. The minister is aware of the increasing demands that the Hemlo gold development, located in an unorganized territory, is putting on adjacent communities to provide expanded municipal and educational services for the increase in population. The minister is also aware that the town councils of Schreiber, Manitouwadge, Terrace Bay and Marathon recently passed a resolution stating that the existing assessment formula and provincial transfer payment program are inadequate to assist the municipalities in meeting the increased demands.

Can the minister tell us what he proposes to do to address these concerns and what financial assistance he intends to implement?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the honourable member is aware, my ministry is the lead ministry in the Hemlo development area. Our staff from Thunder Bay is working very closely with the municipalities to try to resolve some of these problems. I would point out to the member that a significant amount of provincial funding is going into this area with regard to the infrastructure -- sewers, water, schools and airports -- in a number of different ways, so many of their problems and inquiries are being responded to.

The question of those communities reaping tax benefits directly from the mining activity is something they will have to go through other channels to resolve. They will have to go to the Ontario Municipal Board, as the member well knows, and make an application, as did the town of Ignace some time ago. I informed the reeve of Terrace Bay just about a week ago of that particular route.

Mr. Van Horne: It seems the municipalities concerned feel there is some ad hockery going on. If one looks at the resolutions passed by those communities -- passed in concert, I would add -- one very significant resolution was passed, and that is the fourth resolution, that the province legislate a formula to provide funds, rather than do it on an ad hoc basis, to provide those ongoing services that communities such as I just described need.

Has the minister considered or is he planning a definite formula instead of using the ad hockery he appears to have been using?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There are a number of programs to which the municipality can apply, as I am sure the member is aware. In the instance where there is a boom problem, as in the Hemlo area, it is much easier for us to deal with those problems as they come forward. We have also dealt with bust problems, such as they have had in the Atikokan area, in much a similar manner, and it worked very well.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the issue is one that I know my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) has raised with the minister many times on a personal basis, and I am aware of a great deal of correspondence not only between that member and the minister but also with every reeve in every community that is affected by the Hemlo development.

In the light of that fact, does the minister not feel that, rather than say to each individual municipality, "You should be going to the municipal board and trying to extend your boundaries and trying to deal with that problem," it would be better to have a clear statement of policy from the ministry with respect to a fairer sharing of taxation benefits from those mining developments?

I just say to the minister -- and I have heard what he said -- that I have spoken to those reeves; in fact, I was in a number of those communities just 10 days ago. The minister knows full well that they are still not satisfied with the actions he is recommending. I hope he will take their concerns seriously and attempt to address what they feel are some very real financial problems they have as a result of the costs of those developments.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as I have already pointed out, there are a number of programs specifically designed to answer those problems in a boom situation. It has worked exceptionally well across northern Ontario for the past several years. With the extra infusion and topping up the Ministry of Northern Affairs can do, has done and will do, I am sure we will answer their problems accordingly.

DOMESTIC WORKERS

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. As the minister well knows, on October 1 the minimum wage went up to $4 an hour, but I understand domestic workers continue to be treated as second-class citizens. The minimum wage for them is still 50 cents below the minimum wage for other workers.

When the minister introduced the equal pay amendment to the Employment Standards Act, he said, "My plans are to strengthen the protection now afforded to domestic workers." In view of that promise, can the minister explain why he is continuing this form of unequal pay and unfair treatment for one of the most exploited groups of workers in this province, most of whom are women?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, my ministry commissioned a province-wide study of the prevailing wages and working conditions for domestics. We are expecting delivery of that study by the end of this month.

Ms. Bryden: In view of the very comprehensive brief submitted to the minister by Intercede, the International Coalition to End Domestics' Exploitation, and the recent endorsement of its recommendations by the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Community and Race Relations just this week, why does the minister have to wait for any more studies before correcting the injustices suffered by domestic workers? Is he mainly interested in saving money for the employers of domestic workers, who are mainly, according to studies, in the $35,000-plus income bracket?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I resent the inference that I am not concerned with the circumstances of the domestic worker. I remind the member opposite there is a provision for domestics in Bill 141, a bill we were unable to get through the House this spring, that we plan to introduce this fall. If the members opposite truly wish to support the circumstances of the domestic worker, I suggest they take a look at Bill 141 again.

AUTO INDUSTRY AMALGAMATION

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. Is the minister aware that General Motors of Canada Ltd. is in the process of amalgamating with a computer firm called EDS Ltd.?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am not.

Mr. Cureatz: Would the minister be so kind as to use his good offices to investigate the amalgamation? In the light of the government's "go east" program, would he use his good offices to approach General Motors and indicate that we in the city of Oshawa and the region of Durham hope there will be no loss of jobs in the computer industry and General Motors outside our area?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Certainly the province does its best to stimulate the creation of jobs in that general area, as evidenced by two or three government actions such as the Ministry of Revenue's relocation or the Liquor Control Board of Ontario's warehouse and so on.

I would also like to point out that the tendency to count job losses is often prevalent, while we do not count job gains. It seems to me General Motors just made a decision to invest more money for plant expansion in that part of Ontario than we have seen in the company's history in Canada. Indeed, that will create a new kanban or Toyota City type of operation which should create more jobs or several thousand jobs, I hope, before it is over.

3:10 p.m.

CHRONIC CARE

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. The minister will recall that about 11 months ago, specifically last November, the Essex District Health Council delivered to his ministry a proposal for a 200-bed chronic care hospital to be built on the site of the present Windsor Western Hospital Centre.

Can the minister tell us why it took until July of this year for ministry officials to have any meetings with the district health council on this matter? Can he tell us why there has been only one meeting and where these discussions now stand?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am not personally familiar with the meeting schedule of the staff of my ministry with representatives of the various district health councils. Therefore, I cannot give him a precise response as to the reason, or whether there have been meetings subsequent to the one he mentioned.

With respect to chronic and extended care beds, I can tell him that at the moment I am awaiting a decision. I have made proposals with respect to further allocations within this year and I am awaiting word on those decisions now. I would hope that within the relatively near future I will be in a position to consider requests from across the province for further chronic, extended and, in some cases, acute care beds.

Mr. Wrye: The first question regarding the chronic care hospital is not a new allocation. It is a new facility to replace a building that is almost 60 years old and that in the first instance was a school building.

Since the minister in his response spoke about the allocations of new chronic care beds, let me ask him whatever happened to the 49 beds that his colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), his predecessor in the ministry, so grandly announced in Windsor in May 1983? Today, in October 1984. those 49 beds allocated by the Treasurer to alleviate our emergency problem are still not in operation.

When are we going to get those chronic care beds in Windsor? When are we going to begin to ease the hospital crisis that so overwhelms our community when we have vacancy rates of zero per cent? Indeed, in some cases the occupancy rate is more than 100 per cent as people sit and lie in the hallways of our hospitals. When is he going to get down to solving that problem?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The honourable member may not have understood my response to the first question, which I think answers the supplementary part of his second question. That is, before any approvals or consideration can be given to a new chronic facility, whether it requires capital or additional operating approval, I must have the financial approval for the allocation.

Mr. Conway: Admit to the game you play. At least have that much honour.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I happen to have a responsibility to this Legislature and to the people of this province. I cannot expend moneys that I do not have approval to spend.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: In the discussion on domestic workers, the Minister of Labour said there was a provision in Bill 141 relating to domestics and said this party was responsible for holding back --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a question of privilege.

MOTIONS

BARGNESI MINES LTD.

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that an application for private legislation in the second session of the 32nd Parliament related to Bill Pr34, An Act to revive the Bargnesi Mines Ltd., be considered during the present session without paying further application fees, without publishing further notice of the application and without lodging further declaration proving publication.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that Mr. Rotenberg and Mr. Kolyn exchange positions in the order of precedence for private members' public business and that the requirement for notice as provided in standing order 64(h) be waived.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that Mr. Sweeney be appointed a member of the standing committee on social development.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MARQUIS VIDEO CORPORATION ACT

Mr. Cousens moved, seconded by Mr. Runciman, first reading of Bill Pr2, An Act to revive Marquis Video Corporation.

Motion agreed to.

MADAWASKA CLUB, LIMITED ACT

Mr. Cousens moved, on behalf of Mr. J. A. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Runciman, first reading of Bill Pr28, An Act respecting The Madawaska Club, Limited.

Motion agreed to.

OSHAWA YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION ACT

Mr. Cureatz moved, seconded by Mrs. Scrivener, first reading of Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the Oshawa Young Women's Christian Association.

Motion agreed to.

LONDON REGIONAL ART GALLERY

Mr. Van Horne moved, seconded by Mr. Riddell, first reading of Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the London Regional Art Gallery.

Motion agreed to.

BARGNESI MINES LIMITED ACT

Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. J. M. Johnson, first reading of Bill Pr35, An Act to revive Bargnesi Mines Limited.

Motion agreed to.

3:20 p.m.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, the business paper indicated we would announce the business for tonight.

The business in the House for tonight is, first, debate on a motion to adopt the third report of the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments. This shows as order 25 in today's Orders and Notices.

Second, we will handle order 29, which is consideration of another report of the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments.

We will then debate simultaneously two reports from the standing committee on procedural affairs dealing with agencies, boards and commissions. These are orders 24 and 30 on today's paper. I do not expect that they will come to a vote tonight, but if they do not, they will be adjourned until a later date.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. G. I. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Riddell, resolution 27:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government recognize that economic pressures continue to force many farmers in this province out of the agriculture industry, and that in order to give our farmers a sense of security in the future of this vital industry, the government take immediate steps to set up short- and long-term financial programs at eight per cent interest rates so that the agriculture industry will remain viable, grow, prosper and compete equitably with agricultural financial assistance programs in other provinces.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to come back to the House again and to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of an industry I believe has been neglected by the government for many years.

But, first of all, as the Legislature begins its fall sittings, I would like to congratulate the Premier (Mr. Davis) and wish him well as far as his future is concerned. May he be able to contribute to the wellbeing of Ontario and Canada in the future.

I would like to point out that agriculture has been hit particularly hard and has not been supported by his government as I feel it should be. Some of the headlines that have come out in the past few months, and as recently as last week in the Hamilton Spectator, indicate the seriousness of the concerns.

I would like to put on the record a heading, "Dream Turning to Nightmare: Once Prosperous Farm Family Facing Ruin," which was in the London Free Press on April 5, 1984. That particular story was about the farmers in the tobacco industry -- and members know very well that this was debated in the House several times during the past session. It points out the serious difficulties that this part of our agriculture industry is in. We have brought to the attention of the government and of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) the fact that it is being overtaxed and that in Ontario, where the industry means so much, it has been hit the hardest.

As recently as Tuesday, September 29, 1984, the Hamilton Spectator's front-page article was entitled, "For Sale: But Who Will Buy as Bottom Falls Out of Rural Land Values?" The article is about a dairy farmer who is 63 years old and would like to sell to some younger people, but there are no buyers.

In 1981 the Ontario Federation of Agriculture emergency task force was headed up by Everett Biggs. The other two members were Del O'Brien and Murray Gaunt, both well-known people in Ontario. They reported back to the Legislature and the minister, but many of the recommendations have still not been put into practice.

I know the government is well aware of the name Del O'Brien, because he has been one of its supporters for many years. I often heard Del O'Brien indicate that agriculture is the industry that makes the economy of Ontario and Canada work. However, it is so neglected and is in such bad condition.

They reported, "Currently, Ontario's only involvement with credit assistance is a limited loan and subsidized rate for tile drainage." A couple of programs have been brought in since then, the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program and the beginning farmer assistance program. That is still just interest assistance.

They said, "All the provinces have some form of credit assistance for farmers, and this raises a demand for similar programs in Ontario." That is really what our resolution is about today.

"The task force is convinced that serious economic problems exist in Ontario agriculture. They are extremely pronounced and most critical in the red meat industry. We are of the opinion that without immediate action by government, part of the red meat industry will very quickly be lost to Ontario and move to other provinces." That is on page 43 of their report of November 1981.

I might bring to the attention of the House an advertisement that was brought to our attention, "Quebec Buys More Beef Business."

"The Quebec government's efforts to attract a bigger slice of national cow-calf and fed cattle production has gained momentum. A new incentive program, to run for six years, was announced in November.

"Funds allocated are $25 million, and enrolment is open until the end of 1986. Farmers purchasing beef cows are eligible for a three-year interest subsidy of up to $750 a head for up to 50 head. Maximum total payment is, therefore, $37,500 for a herd of 50 cows.

"In addition, if the cows are enrolled in a provincial ROP program, they will each be eligible for a grant of $100, and participating farmers can also get a subsidy payment of $600 per head for purchasing a maximum of two high quality beef bulls."

That is only part of their program in connection with beef, yet Ontario has stood idly by while beef farmers have gone out of business. The desperation came forth when the farmers from Huron county were going around trying to protect their farms only a few years ago. It was a good indication that trouble was brewing and that the beef industry in Ontario was in trouble. The government has still not seen fit to come to their aid.

Here is another comment from the report of the task force in November 1981. "If significant changes in policy direction are not made, other segments of agriculture which are not able to extract adequate returns from the marketplace will become part of the disintegration process already being experienced by a significant number of farmers." That is found on page 43 of the report.

On page 44 it says: "Action is needed now -- without delay and with the full realization that high interest rates are not compatible with agricultural production returns generally and are downright lethal to a large number of farmers. As well, this economic paralysis is being transmitted to those industries which service agriculture." That is true of the farm machinery industry. Only this past week there were layoffs at Massey-Ferguson in Brantford and the closing down of a meat packing plant, Burns Meats, in Kitchener.

"Band-Aid approaches are no longer acceptable. There must be a dedication and commitment on the part of governments, not only to solving the problems of the moment, but ensuring a sense of security for the future. Government can and must accept this responsibility." That is found on page 46.

3:30 p.m.

Recommendations from that report include the following:

"The province of Ontario should review subsidies and farm assistance programs available in other provinces, particularly in the province of Quebec, with a view to correcting any inequities in the long-term through an interprovincial accord. In the short-term, if considered necessary, Ontario could introduce assistance programs to ensure Ontario farmers are not disadvantaged through parochial policies of other provinces."

As I pointed out, there were a couple of programs implemented. There was the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program and the beginning farmer assistance program, again with interest assistance.

"The province of Ontario should reconsider its position on long-term credit for young and starting farmers. The Province of Ontario Savings Offices were introduced in the early 1920s to provide credit for farmers. They could become the lending arm of the provincial government for young farmers."

We did some research through the library and we found the Province of Ontario Savings Office was created in 1921. The purpose was to assist the agricultural industry; that was what it was set up for. After looking not only at policies in Canada but outside our boundaries, we found the strongest financial bank in Holland is the Agricultural Bank. It supports its agricultural industry with low interest loans.

The former Minister of Agriculture for Canada, Eugene Whelan, who incidentally did so much on behalf of the farming industry, indicated that Japan was supplying its agricultural industry with four per cent money. Again, when we are looking around and trying to compete in the agricultural field, it is an indication that one cannot do it on high-interest money.

For the period 1979 to 1984 there were 771 farms that declared bankruptcy. How many more farmers have just walked off and left without declaring bankruptcy? That is an unknown quantity. But they have kept steadily increasing from 64 bankruptcies in 1979 to 122 in 1980. In 1981 there were 140 bankruptcies; in 1982 there were 176; in 1983 there were 165; and from January to August 1984 there were 104.

This year could be another disastrous year. In my own particular area, with the tobacco cutback, with the poor crops and with the still-high cost of input, I know there is going to be a lot more farmers facing that difficult decision as winter rolls around.

Employment is another factor in which the agricultural industry has shown a drastic reduction in. It went from 153,000 in September 1983 to 125,000 in September 1984. If we are looking for ways of getting our youth employed and increasing employment generally, agriculture can play a leading and tremendous role in that.

Between 1971 and 1983 the total farm debt in Ontario increased from $1,293,000,000 to $5,037,000,000, almost five times. Members can see, with high interest rates, how devastating that is to the industry.

Only as recently as October 3, 1984, a Globe and Mail heading read: "Best of Farmers Carry Debts They Cannot Repay, Study Says." The article says, "Canada's most productive farmers are carrying debts most can never hope to repay, a federal study shows."

Particularly at 12 or 15 per cent, that is still too high. There is not that kind of farm profit in the agricultural industry; there is not that kind of profit in almost any business in Ontario.

As of March 1984, Ontario led the nation in the proportion of Farm Credit Corp. loans in arrears, with payments outstanding in 20 per cent of the loans. That is a very high percentage.

The government's commitment of $335 million for the whole agricultural industry, or one per cent of the budget expenditures, pales in light of the $583 million that will be collected by the tobacco tax alone. Again, the province has used that like the goose that laid the golden eggs. If one of these days that goose is no longer around, I do not know what they are going be collecting taxes from then. It has been a tremendous industry that made that part of Ontario very prosperous.

While Quebec spends $8,358 per farmer, Ontario spends $3,578 per farmer. Quebec considers its agricultural industry much more important than does Ontario. The Ontario agricultural industry relies almost entirely on credit provided by the federal government and private lending institutions and is the only province that does not offer a long-term credit program.

On February 7, 1982, the former Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food told Bruce county farmers the province would seriously consider setting up its own farm bank if the farm credit problems became chronic and persisted for more than a year. This is exactly what has happened and the situation shows no signs of improvement.

The Ontario farm adjustment assistance program will expire this December. Will this program be renewed and will interest rates be lowered to eight per cent from the current 12 per cent? Why does the minister not announce the extension of this program now in this Legislature, instead of waiting to announce it at the annual meeting of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in November as he usually does?

Only a few months ago the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) stated "interest rates have stabilized." Yet in the span of a few months, the prime rate has increased from 11 per cent to 13.5 per cent and might go even higher before crops are harvested in the fall. The pressure is on the farmers to be able to finance in some areas with only a small crop and in some instances almost a crop failure as far as spring grain was concerned.

The OFA recently pointed out to the minister that the latest Farm Credit Corp. survey shows "the one third of Canadian farmers with high debt loads and low equity in their farming operations produced about half of Canada's food last year." They also point out that the first priority for the success of the agriculture industry is "long-term affordable credit." With these farmers in trouble, we can see what a sad state the industry is in.

Farm operating expenses continue to increase. The latest forecasts from the ministry indicate 1984 farm operating expenses and depreciation charges are to increase five per cent from last year; feed costs, nine per cent; interest on indebtedness, 8.4 per cent to $547 million; fertilizer prices, 14 per cent; machinery expenses, seven per cent; pesticides, six per cent; and seed expenditures, seven per cent.

Those are all expenditures that every farmer has to deal with. Wheat is at $3.50 a bushel at the Norfolk Co-operative Co. Ltd. today, compared to 1947 when it was $2 a bushel, which indicates to us why the farmers are in such difficulties.

At the same time, realized net incomes are projected to be up by 12 per cent from 1981. That is an average of four per cent a year, which does not keep up with the cost of the input side.

Members can clearly see why we brought in a resolution indicating the need for lower interest rates for our farming industry to get our economy going again and to get our manufacturers working. The farmer is the best utilizer of steel, the best utilizer of wood products and fencing. You name it, they utilize it. If the farmer is healthy, the industry is going to be healthy and the province as a whole will be healthy. We would like to see the government support the resolution and come up with an eight per cent interest rate.

I will keep the three to four minutes or whatever I have left to sum up.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this resolution, I want to say immediately that we support it. I personally support it and my party supports it with some enthusiasm. I have no doubt the members on the opposite side will support it too, because it is a nice statement of principles and they will not have to take any action on it after it is passed. That in itself means they will be supporting it.

We recognize that nothing, perhaps not even low prices, has clobbered the farmers of this province and of this nation as much as the high interest rates they have had to pay over the past two, three or four years. We also know that adequate financing at reasonable rates has been the main issue in the farm organizations' presentations to both the provincial and federal governments in those same three or four years.

Our party has had a task force of which I was chairman. It toured Ontario last fall, a little less than a year ago. Wherever we went we found the prime concern and problem facing Ontario farmers was their inability to pay the high interest rates and their inability to get necessary funding at reasonable interest rates to carry on their operations.

Before he resigned just over two years ago, the former agricultural critic for this party constantly made an issue of high interest rates in this House. He demanded that the government take some action to remedy this situation for the farmers. Of course, none was taken.

I believe the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) is sincere in bringing in this resolution, but I also want to say that it has been the Liberal party nationally that has the direct responsibility and blame for the interest rates being where they were over the past four or five years.

It is also true that the member's own agricultural critic, the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), defended high interest rates in this House two or three years ago. If anyone doubts me on that, I ask him to read pages 4135 to 4141 from Hansard of October 8, 1982.

Not only did the federal government refuse to intervene on those high interest rates, but also it kept the interest rates of the Farm Credit Corp. high. It did not provide the FCC with sufficient funds to meet the demands of the farmers. After all the pressure that had been brought to bear, even by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, to pass Bill 653, which would have given the farmers some protection against foreclosure, the government never got around to enacting that legislation before it was defeated in the election this past summer.

The Liberals and the Liberal government are guilty on every count for the financial difficulties the farmers find themselves in at present.

It should be said that the Progressive Conservative government across the way here refused to make any intervention to the federal government, even the Liberal federal government, to lower those interest rates. Accordingly, pious statements were made, but it never actually asked the federal government to intervene and lower those interest rates, which we know went up as high as 20 per cent, 22 per cent and perhaps even 24 per cent.

We were told by the apologists among the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives that we need high interest rates to fight inflation. Inflation has come down; it has come down very dramatically. While it has come down this year to about four per cent, interest rates have gone up by two per cent. So much for the theory that one needs those high interest rates to fight inflation.

We are told we need high interest rates to keep our money from going out of the country. I think anybody who looked at it at all would know governments can put controls on exports of money. Governments, including the US government, have done it; so that does not stand up either.

Governments say, "If we do not have high interest rates, our dollar value will fall." We have kept our interest rates up, and look where our dollar value is now compared to that of the United States. If it did fall, we probably would be in a much better position than we are at present, because we would be able to get more into the export market and sell our goods, including our agricultural goods.

All those arguments are simply phoney. They are invalid. There is no substance to them. The sensible answer to the high interest rates is for the new federal government to intervene to bring those interest rates down. They would not even have to have new legislation. They have power to order those interest rates to be reduced. That is what we need in society. That is the real answer, rather than the resolution we have here.

Do members know that for every one per cent reduction in interest rates, if it were applied across the board at the given time, the farmers would save some $30 million to $40 million? If we dropped the interest rate in this nation to eight per cent, and that is plenty high enough when the inflation rate is only 4.5 per cent or even five per cent, the farmers in this province would save somewhere between $150 million and $200 million in interest rates and it would not cost the government anything.

When we are talking about an interest subsidy program, it does not matter how it is done, it is going to cost the government and the taxpayers of the province. I support it because of the desperate situation the farmers are in. I support this resolution and so does my party, but I suggest it is very much a second-best method.

The situation has got much worse -- I think the member for Haldimand-Norfolk made this point -- not just in the last two years but in the last year and in the last six months. The brief that was submitted to the Ontario cabinet this year by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, as well as to the opposition parties, points out the very desperate situation and provides a number of recommendations which in effect mean more capital for them at lower interest rates. It is what they desperately need.

Members are aware, and it has been mentioned, of the bankruptcies and farm failures, the number of which this year across this nation, even in this province, is certainly going to surpass that of any previous year.

The member for Haldimand-Norfolk spoke about the drop in purchases of farm equipment, which does not just affect the farmers. It has been absolutely dramatic. The figures I have show that 31,000 tractors were bought in 1979 in Canada; that number is down now to 18,000. The number of combines bought in 1979 was 8,000; it is down to 4,000 in 1983.

There was a news report just within the past few days saying the number of combines purchased so far this year is down by something like 20 per cent and even the number of tractor purchases is down. That is not because farmers do not need them. No, they need new equipment. It is because they do not have the money to buy them. With the high interest rates we have at present, they simply cannot afford to borrow the money. They cannot even meet the capital payments they are now required to meet.

In this party we think the answer is to lower interest rates. That way it does not cost the taxpayers. Sure, those who have investments will not get as much on their investments, but I suggest that is better than having the farmers in our society going out of business by the dozens and by the hundreds because they cannot get their operating capital at reasonable interest rates.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. McLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the resolution before this House put forward by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk.

The honourable member's resolution asks that the government recognize that continuing economic pressures are facing Ontario farmers. It also suggests this government should provide assistance in support of Ontario's food producers. There can be no quarrel with that. However, I take exception to the way this sentiment is worded.

The resolution makes it appear that this is a brand-new concept. The member's proposed program of response is presented as if it would be the first step ever taken by this government in support of agriculture. He of all people, coming from a riding with a healthy proportion of family farms, should realize the government has made considerable efforts over the years to support these independent entrepreneurs.

The member recommends setting up an across-the-board program that would, in his estimation, benefit Ontario's agriculture and food industry. We as a government recognize its importance. Indeed, our support for agriculture is predicated on a deeply held belief in the social and economic institution of the family farm. The philosophy of this government, which has been translated into a range of concrete programs, has been to support that enterprise, but in a very pragmatic and considered manner rather than just by tossing tax dollars to the wind and letting them fall where they may. Ontario is committed to helping farmers help themselves, and we gear our assistance to those who are truly in need.

For example, let us look for a moment at the issue of credit. For decades a major source of long-term credit for farmers has been the federal government through its Farm Credit Corp. The federal level has the greater financial resources needed to play this important role and has been the main lender since 1959. Before that there was the Canadian Farm Loan Board, which was established under an act passed in 1929.

It has been the policy of Ontario that the federal level will provide the long-term credit and that Ontario will provide additional assistance as needed, as in the case of the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program. The provinces were asked in the late 1960s to leave long-term agricultural credit to the federal government. We agreed and continue to do so. This leaves the province more flexibility to introduce, alter and adapt existing programs in response to changing conditions simply because we cannot have such large sums of money tied up for such long periods of time.

The member calls for credit at eight per cent. That completely overlooks significant efforts on the part of this government in these areas. For example, Ontario's beginning farmer assistance program effectively reduces interest rates by five percentage points to a maximum of eight per cent. This is a $135-million program, and over the course of five years we expect it to assist about 5,000 people and help them fulfil the dreams they have had to become full-time farmers. The importance of this effort was underscored by the increase of $9 million given to this program this year in the provincial budget. Thus far, close to 1,000 applications have been approved under this program.

Interest-rate reduction is the focus of another government initiative. The Ontario farm adjustment assistance program was established to help farmers who were battling high interest rates get over a temporary financial impasse. In its first year the interest-reduction feature of this plan was the aspect most widely employed. This can reduce interest rates to 12 per cent, a figure recommended by a task force that included the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. But in the last two years, farmers taking part in this program have concentrated primarily on the provincial guarantees on operating lines of credit.

Interest rates of eight per cent also apply to loans farmers can obtain through provincial drainage programs. In total, the government expects to invest $41.7 million this fiscal year in municipal and individual drainage projects. These short-term and medium-term financial assistance programs are significant and continuing benefits to Ontario's food producers. They work precisely because they have been carefully designed to put government financial support in the hands of those who need it most.

According to the member's resolution, one of the things this proposal is supposed to do is to allow agriculture "to compete equitably with agricultural financial assistance programs in other provinces." I submit that this is precisely what we do not want to do: compete with other provinces and other treasuries. It is time we began to perform as a nation in agriculture. Trying to ensure that we compete more effectively with other provinces has only one result. If we were to put a program in place that was seen to give this province an advantage over some other, then the other would counter with a program of its own.

It is time all the provinces realized they cannot win. Ultimately their food producers and consumers cannot win at this kind of agricultural chess game. We can achieve equitable treatment by treating all the players equally, setting up programs that support agriculture in the long term and that are purely national in scope and available to all and favouring none.

This is what the government is trying to do through its support and promotion of national programs such as tripartite stabilization, which the new federal government has promised to institute by the end of this year. We believe in the national program. We also believe in the strength of the federal government's commitment to this vital course of action. But our red meat producers have been disappointed before by delays in implementing this crucial program.

For this reason, the Minister of Agriculture and Food has given this government's pledge to the farming community: There will be stabilization in Ontario as of January 1, 1985. This will either take the form of the national three-way partnership or, if necessary, a provincial bipartite program will come into being in the new year. This standby plan will provide our food producers with the benefits of stabilization until such time as the national plan comes into force.

Along the same lines, we endorse a truly national agribond program as a source of lower-cost, long-term credit for Ontario farmers and those across Canada as well. Having programs such as these in place will give us the opportunity as a nation to dismantle the ad hoc fragmented tissue of provincial government. Replacing the patchwork with equitable national programs will free us to compete in the world's agricultural marketplace with other nations and not with each other.

The agribond program is under discussion at the federal and provincial levels. In brief, agribonds will allow for a pool of funds to be channelled into agriculture at lower than market interest rates. This government's agribond proposal would be cost-efficient. With the co-operation and participation of the federal government, a national agribond program will mean a substantial reduction to farmers in the cost of borrowing long-term money.

This is one of the several approaches to the issue of agricultural credit that will be the subject of a special federal-provincial meeting of agriculture ministers on November 8 and 9 in Toronto. This will take a long, hard look at practical solutions to this concern.

The government has already provided $335 million a year in support of agriculture through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, plus many millions of dollars through other ministries and programs. These include $10 million in Board of Industrial Leadership and Development grants, $1.2 million from the Ministry of Energy for agricultural energy projects and the greenhouse initiative program and $600,000 from the Ministry of Northern Affairs for northern agricultural programs.

The words of the member's resolution sound good. The sentiments expressed are easy to say. But all this talk about a proposed loan program ignores the bottom line. The member fails to offer us any clues as to exactly where this money is coming from.

4 p.m.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the meat of my remarks, I want to say the farmers of Ontario have never taken the New Democratic Party seriously because they know the allegations just made by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) about my stand on interest rates as they affect farmers are ludicrous and completely false.

The rural communities throughout Ontario know that no one in this Legislature has spoken out for farmers more than I have. Oh, how the member for Welland-Thorold would like to have the same trust and respect.

Here we are again early in the fall session of what could conceivably be the last session of the 32nd Parliament, threshing old straw, trying to get those few kernels of wheat --

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I believe the statement that my remarks were false is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn.

Mr. Riddell: If the member would listen to my remarks, I said the reason the farmers of Ontario do not take the member seriously is they know the allegations just made are ludicrous and completely false. If he wants to take the issue up with the farmers, that is fine. Let us not waste the time of the House doing it here. Let me continue.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, again on the point of order, a statement was not made by the farmers, it was made by the member for Huron-Middlesex in this House and therefore is unparliamentary. He is not quoting; he is making a statement on his own.

The Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the point of order raised by the honourable member; however, he is referring to others and not making the allegations you have said are false, as I have heard the debate. We will monitor the rest of the debate so that we do not flirt with and trip over allegations we know are against the standing orders.

Mr. Riddell: As I said, here we are again threshing over old straw, trying to get those few kernels of wheat that could make the difference between the sustained livelihood of the farmers and their suppliers and continuing hardship and eventual bankruptcy.

In accordance with the adage, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again," we in the Liberal Party are once again trying to convince the Minister of Agriculture and Food and his colleagues that all is certainly not well on the farm front and extended public support for agriculture is needed if the consumers of Ontario want a continuation of high-quality food at reasonable prices.

Surely the minister and his cabinet colleagues have become increasingly aware that a significant number of family farms are facing economic disaster. Current short-term economic assistance, such as the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program, small business development bonds and interest subsidies for Farm Credit Corp. mortgages, has done little to change the dire economic straits in which 15 per cent of our producers find themselves. These are not my words, but the words of farm organizations such as the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

According to a recent survey done by the Farm Credit Corp., Canada's most productive farmers are carrying debts most can never hope to repay. The survey shows the one third of Canadian farmers with high debt and low equity in their farms accounted for about half the nation's food production last year. It also shows that about one per cent of all Canadian farmers have debts greater than the value of their farms and cannot hope to survive.

The findings certainly contradict the prevailing view in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food that those who are going out of business or who are in serious difficulty tend to be poor managers and inefficient farmers. The findings do agree with organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture which have lobbied for low-interest lending programs to help farmers adjust their debt load.

The federation has maintained it is young families that have begun farming in the past five or six years that are in serious financial difficulty because of high interest rates and low commodity prices. Even the Monthly Crop and Livestock Report put out by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food shows that realized net income of Ontario farm operators has increased an average of only three per cent a year during the past four years. Honourable members should compare this to the projected increases in the 1984 farm operating expenses and depreciation charges of five per cent from 1983.

To further point out to the minister the hardships of the farmers, I would like to quote other projected increases in the farmers' input costs. Higher feed costs are expected to increase total commercial feed expenditures by nine per cent from last year. The interest on indebtedness is expected to increase 8.4 per cent from last year, primarily due to the result of higher interest rates, not total debt outstanding.

A projected increase of four per cent in wages to labour is based on expected increases in wage rates since 1983. Both fertilizer prices and usage are expected to be higher in 1984 than last year, resulting in a projected increase of 14 per cent in total fertilizer expenses.

Machinery expenses are projected to increase seven per cent, with higher fuel costs and an increase in frequency of repairs contributing to this increase. Ontario farmers are expected to spend six per cent more on pesticides in 1984 than they did last year. Seed expenditures are projected to increase seven per cent due to higher costs and changes in seeded areas.

It is important to note that these are one-year increases in expenditures compared to a 12 per cent increase in realized net farm income over the last four years, an average of three per cent a year. Is it any wonder that so much farm land is up for sale, but there are no buyers? Is it any wonder that farm suppliers such as the United Co-operatives of Ontario and the farm machinery companies are in trouble? Is it any wonder that merchants in rural Ontario towns, who rely on the farm family business, are hanging closure sale signs in their store windows? The farm crisis is affecting many businesses in rural Ontario.

If my memory serves me correctly, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, in one of his speeches not long ago, indicated that the farm financial crisis was over. One would hope that was the case, but I am sorry to say the crisis has not disappeared. The president of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario said just recently: "We are becoming more and more aware that the pinch is a lot harder and more widespread than we had first thought. It is not over at all."

Other contacts have said the worst is about to begin, and government and banks are kidding themselves if they think the farming industry is over the hump. We in the Liberal Party should not have to keep reminding the minister that the farming industry in this province is too vital to ignore. They are not only my words when I say the agricultural industry in this province has been badly neglected by the Ontario Conservative government.

I refer to a publication entitled Farm Credit in the Canadian Financial System, and I refer to a statement in that publication as follows:

"Ontario agriculture relies almost entirely on credit provided by the federal government and private lending institutions, and Ontario is the only province that does not offer a long-term credit program. The credit programs which it has offered over the years have normally been government guaranteed loans aimed at assisting a particular sector."

Every other province offers long-term credit at very affordable interest rates -- thus the reason my colleague the member for Haldimand-Norfolk has introduced this resolution asking that the Ontario government "take immediate steps to set up short- and long-term financial programs at eight per cent interest rates so that the agricultural industry in this province will remain viable, grow, prosper and compete equitably" with the agricultural industry in the other provinces.

The Ontario Liberal Party has and will continue to develop agricultural policies that will help the agricultural industry of this province to regain its viability and give it an opportunity to compete equitably with the agricultural financial assistance programs in the other provinces and in other countries.

We have included in our policy low-interest, long- and short-term credit targeted to the farmers who most need it but who can also meet their obligations. We have taken into consideration the fact that the most productive farmers are carrying the most debt and that it is necessary to target low-interest lending programs. Simply lending more money at low interest to farmers who cannot hope to repay does not solve the problem and may even place them in worse circumstances.

We in this party have been aware for some time that the most productive farmers are the ones who are in the most serious difficulty as they are the farmers who made heavy investments and built up enterprises fairly recently. They are finding now that they are in trouble due to high interest rates. Many will have to leave unless they can get loans at reduced rates, whether from the federal government or the provincial government.

4:10 p.m.

As the minister knows, the Farm Credit Corp. loan is of little value to the farmers due to the relatively high interest rates, and although the minister has endeavoured to cushion the blow of high interest rates through subsidizing the Farm Credit Corp. rates five percentage points down to 12 per cent. The fact of the matter is the most productive farmers who are carrying the most debt cannot hope to stay in business at 12 per cent interest. Even the Ontario beginning farmer assistance program is based on subsidized interest rates and can hardly be considered long-term credit, since the term for that program is five years.

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the time for the points of order and privilege the member raised was taken into consideration. Have I some more time?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): No, that is all part of your time. The honourable member has now exhausted --

Mr. Riddell: It should not be.

The Acting Speaker: That is the way it works. We are as consistent with the member as we are with all.

Mr. Riddell: May I just finish the last few words?

The Acting Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Riddell: The agricultural industry in this country is truly facing a crisis, compounded this year by lower commodity prices. Unfortunately, this province seems to be doing less than every other province to shore up this most important industry. I become very annoyed when I reflect upon a 41-year-old government that has squandered billions of dollars on advertising, excess hydro capacity, buying shares in an oil company, land banking, and extending privileges to a few while denying the kind of aid that farmers need.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member. I was willing to allow a few words, but the member has another speech.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of this resolution. As my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold said at the outset, it is a solution that we support not only as individuals but also as a party, although it is a second-best solution and not the real solution we should be seeking. The real solution, obviously, is the solution at the federal level of an overall reduction of interest rates.

I would hope that as a result of the debate this afternoon and as a result of a number of other debates and questions that will obviously go on during this fall session and on into the winter, the government will no longer have the excuse of another party in power in Ottawa and will sit down and seriously put pressure on its colleagues in the new Mulroney administration to start dealing realistically and in an upfront way with the very serious economic and social problems that high interest rates in this country are causing, especially when one takes into consideration as my colleague has mentioned, that interest rates are currently running nine per cent to 10 per cent above the rate of inflation.

We all know the arguments that were made in the past by the party across the way that interest rates had to remain three per cent to four per cent above the inflation rate. If they were valid then, they are as valid today, and we should stop playing games and trying to have it both ways.

At any rate, back to the specifics of the resolution. We support this resolution because until we get some action at the federal level, the farming community in this province is in very serious trouble. I think my colleagues in the Liberal Party will admit it although the member for Huron-Middlesex may not admit it. Both of the opposition parties have been saying for some considerable length of time that the agricultural community in this province is in a very serious state of crisis, and has been and will continue to be until this province, unilaterally, takes action to deal with the specifics and the financial problems that are out there. The bulk of those financial problems are related, as this resolution indicates, to the question of interest rates and therefore the cost of running a farm operation.

We have heard from the government side far too often that the farmers who are in trouble are inefficient, bad managers. We now have a very clear study from the federal government, the Farm Credit Corp., which clearly shows that excuse is not the case at all; that the farmers in this province and right across the country who are carrying the largest debt burdens, the farmers who are carrying debts they likely can never repay in the present situation, are in fact the most productive farmers in this country and are the farmers who are producing slightly over half the food crops in Canada.

If that does not reflect a crisis, we will certainly have a crisis if those farmers who are producing half our food production go under. It will be a crisis this government will not be able to deny or avoid as the prices for imports to replace those food crops skyrocket and as the consumers right across this province, upon whom this government depends for its votes, end its reign in this province.

It is also very clear that the issues being debated here today are not just issues that are being put by politicians and by bureaucrats doing studies in Ottawa. A number of the members who have spoken today have made reference to the presentations that were made to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the cabinet by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Their concerns and the problems they set out are identical to the problems that are being discussed here today, and the solutions generally follow the same lines.

I refer again to comments my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold made in his remarks earlier about the agriculture task force of this caucus that he chaired, which toured the province last fall and into January and February. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend all the hearings of that task force with my colleague, but I did attend several in the Niagara Peninsula and in the southwest.

In almost every case, the recommendations we have made in this task force report parallel or meet exactly the concerns and the recommendations that exist here in the Ontario Federation of Agriculture presentation to the cabinet. We specifically recommended in this task force report that, in the case of short-term loan assistance, changes be made to the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program; part B should be revised to provide qualifying farmers with subsidies of interest rates above the eight per cent level instead of the current 12 per cent.

This clearly falls in line with what the member for Haldimand-Norfolk has presented here in his resolution, and we support it. The government should be listening very seriously and very clearly to what is a united opposition on this issue, an opposition that, although it does not quite hold 50 per cent of the seats in this House, represents substantially over 50 per cent of the population of this province.

Instead of having farm assistance programs such as we currently have, in which OFAAP, because of its nature, ends up paying $14.3 million to the banks instead of in assistance to the farmers, we should get on with the job of sitting down with the agricultural community and carefully working out our farm assistance programs so that they provide assistance directly to the farmers and not to the banks because the assistance did not work and the farmer collapsed financially anyway.

4:20 p.m.

We have a situation that is desperate. My colleague referred earlier in his comments to the sales of farm machinery in this country, so I speak not only to the members of the government party who are the representatives of agricultural communities in this province but also to those such as the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), who is not here this afternoon, who represent communities that depend very largely for their livelihood on the economic health and wellbeing of the family farm in Ontario. We have seen the devastation that has fallen on communities such as Brantford, Hamilton and many others across this country because of the collapse in sales of farm machinery and the subsequent closures and layoffs that result in the farm machinery industry.

It is not just a question of protecting and assisting farmers. I think it was the member for Haldimand-Norfolk who made this point in his original comments. It is a question of supporting the overall health of the Canadian and Ontario economies that we are talking about this afternoon. The agricultural industry and the family farm are the very basis of the resources on which the overall economy is built and is dependent. For us to leave the agricultural sector in Ontario and the most productive segment of that sector in crisis without taking effective and decisive action is insane.

Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a resolution from the member for Haldimand-Norfolk. It suggests that the government set up short- and long-term financial programs at eight per cent interest rates to support agriculture.

There is much discussion in this chamber on the subject of agriculture, as there should be. It is a major industry, a major employer in the province, especially when we consider jobs in relation to industry, and a major source of income. However, using the term "agriculture" can make it sound like a homogeneous enterprise, a big business. What is often overlooked is that it is not one big business. Instead, it is more than 82,000 small businesses, with all the variations that suggests in management and in financial and market prospects.

These thousands of small businesses are, for the most part, family-run. The family farm has been the heart of Ontario's food production since the first settlers cleared the land. It is a stabilizing force and a significant contributor to the quality of life Ontario's rural citizens enjoy.

I will leave it to others to comment on the specifics of the member's proposals. For my part, I would like to set the record straight and outline some examples of the leadership role this government has played in implementing measures to support Ontario's farm people.

In all our positive actions, the government's approach is to help people help themselves, not setting up programs just for the sake of setting up programs, but targeting the assistance to see that it gets to the people who need it most.

While we accept that one farm bankruptcy is one too many, we also recognize that we cannot guarantee that no farmer will ever go bankrupt again. However, I must point out that there has been some improvement in this area.

Overall figures for farm bankruptcies in Ontario were lower in 1983 than in 1982, and if current trends continue for the rest of the year, they will likely wind up at about the same rate as in 1983.

This is in the face of dramatic increases in other parts of Canada, even in those jurisdictions that we too often hear cited as shining examples of the levels of assistance Ontario should be providing. In fact, the same provinces that allegedly have higher subsidy levels also have higher rates of bankruptcies.

Farms are small businesses, facing the same pressures as all small businesses plus some others that are unique. I cannot recall the last time I heard of a clothing store that was in financial trouble because there had not been enough rain.

Not only are Ontario farm bankruptcies lower proportionally than in other provinces, but they are also lower than the failure rate for small businesses. The overall rate of small business bankruptcies is five times higher than that of farms.

The member's resolution also implies that farm bankruptcies are widespread. This simply is not the case. In the first eight months of this year, there were 104 in Ontario. I am in no way glossing over the personal hardship or minimizing the feelings of the people involved. I must point out, however, there are some 82,000 farms in this province and the average equity in these farms is 85 per cent.

This government knows there are some people in difficulty. As I said earlier, that is why our assistance programs are aimed specifically at the people who need the help. We do not just fire off government money in all directions and say, "Here, take it whether you need it or not." The government once again recognized the needs and importance of our agricultural sector when it increased the share of the provincial budget to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food by 16.3 per cent, setting the ministry's current budget at $335 million.

Where will this money go? It will go to the type of targeted assistance programs I mentioned earlier. One of the minister's major programs has committed $135 million to helping people establish themselves as full-time farmers. This worthy program was enriched by a further $9 million for this fiscal year as part of the budget increases. More than 1,000 applicants have been approved thus far for beginning farmer assistance. The budget also meant more money for farm tax reduction. It is anticipated this year's rebate to our food producers will amount to close to $90 million.

Another example of helping people to help themselves is the broad range of initiatives announced recently to boost the red meat industry and stimulate improved productivity. The challenges this industry face have been well documented. A committee of industry people and staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has responded with a blueprint that will inject $62.5 million into improving the long-term prospects for beef and sheep producers. I refer to the red meat plan.

These steps include a $1-million research fund, $6.3 million a year to increase the efficiency of the cow-calf sector and a fund of $2.4 million a year to encourage adoption of modern management techniques and new technology in stocker and slaughter cattle feeding development. The red meat program also involves adding field staff to conduct education programs with producers to improve levels of profitability and business management. In addition, the program will invest $1.1 million annually to bolster and expand the sheep industry.

This government followed up this announcement with another targeted program, AgriNorth. This is aimed at stimulating agriculture in northern Ontario through a variety of measures: adapting technology to northern farming conditions, land drainage programs, grain storage and handling, marketing and forage production. Since this program was announced last summer, 249 projects have been approved. They represent an investment by this government of more than half a billion dollars.

This government's assistance efforts are not only aimed at expanding agriculture in this province and bringing in new people, vital as these activities are, but our programs also protect the interests of those already involved in producing this province's food. For example, financial protection programs ensure that producers are not left in the lurch by ensuing financial problems of those who buy their products. The members of this House know all too well the dislocation and financial hardship that have resulted from the fortunately rare occasions when this has occurred.

One reason this is such a rare occurrence is the existence of financial protection programs. These have a long history, going back about 15 years to the establishment of the milk fund. Subsequently, plans have been set up for beef producers and for those who grow vegetables for processing. There is a similar plan about to be implemented for corn and soybean producers, and the Minister of Agriculture and Food is actively encouraging producers of other commodities to come under this protection.

4:30 p.m.

One of our main programs of financial assistance, the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program, has benefited literally thousands of farmers in the province. Again, this is targeted assistance, aimed directly at those facing financial uncertainty caused by high interest rates or inability to obtain operating capital.

This government has also committed $25 million to help preserve the land base on which the food producers depend through our soil conservation environmental protection program. The government also announced last month an expansion of this program. This will see 14 specialists in soil conservation and soil and crop management forming a special advisory service for farmers. They will concentrate their efforts in Ontario's most erosion-prone areas.

We also expect to invest $41.7 million this fiscal year in drainage programs to make farm land more productive. The Board of Industrial Leadership and Development initiative has a large agriculture component dealing with high-technology food processing and lengthening the marketing season for Ontario producers through improved storage and packing systems.

Ontario's investment in agricultural research is the highest of any province, $30 million a year. The return on this investment would gladden the heart of any investor. Our estimates indicate that every dollar we invest in agricultural research pays $40 back.

Those are just some of the directions this government has pursued and continues to pursue in order, in the words of the member's resolution, "to give our farmers a sense of security in the future of this vital industry," not to mention the availability of the onsite advice and assistance through our network of local agriculture representatives or our successful efforts to help producers market their goods at home and abroad.

I have not even touched on some of the actions this government is currently taking that will benefit the food producers both immediately and far into the future.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support my colleague the member for Haldimand-Norfolk in asking for eight per cent financing for the farmers of Ontario.

The member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) mentioned that the government had given support to farmers in the past. I agree they have in the past but that was a long time ago. I can remember when I got my start in farming through the junior farmer loan from this government, which supplied low interest rate money over 30 years. That is the type of financing we need today. We need long-term, low-interest-rate financing. It is needed today just as badly as at any time I can remember in agriculture.

The member for Simcoe East also mentioned that we do not want to make programs better than programs in other provinces. The farmers in Ontario are not asking for better programs; they are asking for programs that are at least equal to the programs of other provinces.

Mr. McClellan: Why can't we be better?

Mr. McKessock: If we could be better, that would be fine, but at least equal to.

We do need and want eight per cent money just for a five-year term but for a term that will be long enough to add some stability to our agricultural industry in Ontario.

I congratulate the member for bringing this forward. I hope the members of the third party and the government will take this resolution seriously and that they will not only take it seriously and vote for it this afternoon, but will also come in with programs before this session is over that will provide the financing we are looking for and, more important, the financing that the farmers in Ontario are looking for to give them that stability to allow them to remain in agriculture now and in the future.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the way my friends took part in the debate. I know they are all interested in the agriculture industry. It kind of came back home to me that we are not living in a garden of Eden. The way it is seen on that side of the House is not the way I see it in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk where the farmers are having difficulty surviving.

I will give an example for the government's digestion. There is a farm for sale and they are asking $150,000 for it. It has 100 acres of land with a house and a barn on it. There are no buyers. A young person cannot afford to buy it because he cannot make the income off that farm to make the payments.

If agriculture is so good under the direction of this government, then I am representing the wrong people. I do not believe it and I do not think the people out there are going to believe it. The government is going to have to answer for it if this is one of the election issues. If everything were running so well, Massey-Ferguson would be running full blast and everybody would be happy. That is not the case.

What we have discussed today is that, in real terms, our agriculture industry is the engine that makes the economy tick. If we do not recognize that, then we are all in trouble. The members on this side of the House recognize that it does play a key role, and I want to make sure our young people have an opportunity to get their hands on it and have a chance to own it and make a living in Ontario.

EARLY RETIREMENT

Mr. Di Santo moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, resolution 33:

That, pending expansion and enrichment of the Canada pension plan to provide adequate early retirement pensions to older workers, Ontario should establish an early retirement fund to enable voluntary early retirement for two categories of older workers, those who work in heavy labour occupations and those whose employers agree to hire younger workers to replace workers retiring before age 65. This fund would pay benefits equal to 50 per cent of the average industrial wage and would be funded by a payroll tax. This tax would be paid by employers and would have no ceiling on earnings subject to tax, but would exempt firms established less than five years, those with a high proportion of younger employees and those with company pension provisions enabling early retirement with full benefits.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, today I am urging this Legislature to make voluntary early retirement a viable option for many of the more than 200,000 men and women aged 60 to 65 who are employed in Ontario.

I want to stress that, for the employee, early retirement should in every case be entirely voluntary. No one who wishes to go on working or who wishes to continue at work for financial reasons should be compelled to take early retirement.

Roughly 60 per cent of Ontario's workers depend solely on public pension benefits and individual savings for retirement income. To make early retirement an effective option in Canada, the Canada pension plan will have to be modified. In the meantime, however, Ontario can and must take the initiative for interim pension reforms.

I must insist that it can be done. There is no jurisdictional obstacle, as some would have us believe, to the Ontario government's acting immediately to improve pension provisions. Opponents of reform have hidden behind this jurisdictional curtain long enough. The fact is that constitutionally Ontario does have the power, if not the obligation, to make the improvements I am proposing.

Section 94A of the Canada Act provides as follows: "The Parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions and supplementary benefits, including survivors, and disability benefits irrespective of age, but no such law shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to any such matter." One need not be a lawyer to see that this text pulls the jurisdictional curtain away from those who hide behind it.

Early retirement is already an option in many other countries. In France, normal state pensionable age is 60. In Italy, it is 60 for men and 55 for women. In addition, Denmark, Belgium, Germany and Greece all have early retirement schemes. When I compare our pension provisions with those of other countries that have ventured to lead in this area, I wonder by what right this government flatters itself with the title "progressive."

4:40 p.m.

My resolution establishes an early retirement fund that would pay out a benefit level of 50 per cent of the average industrial composite wage, or about $10,500 a year. This is higher than is guaranteed under the guaranteed income supplement, old age security or the guaranteed annual income system, and for workers earning at the average industrial composite level, it is higher than the average private pension plan benefit of 40 per cent of pre-retirement earnings.

The early retirement fund would be financed entirely by a payroll tax paid by employers. This is the most logical and direct approach. Employers in Ontario must take greater responsibility for the post-retirement wellbeing of their employees. There are too many who look upon early retirement as a form of charity or as a privilege. This is not how the workers who give their sweat and toil in many years of service to their employer look upon it. To them it is a right, something they deserve in return for the investment of their labour in the service of their employer.

The payroll tax would have no ceiling on earnings subject to tax and would exempt firms established five or fewer years ago and firms that have a relatively high proportion of young workers. It would further exempt employers that provide full early retirement benefits.

How much will the early retirement fund cost? That will depend on the take-up. A one per cent payroll tax would generate a fund of more than $500 million. Also, roughly 40 per cent of the full-time work force in Ontario is covered by private pension plans. About 13 per cent or 11,000 of these private pension plan members belong to plans that permit early retirement at full pension. Therefore, the cost per worker would range between $4,500 and $10,500 annually, depending on his or her pension plan. A worker at the average industrial composite wage level with a standard 40 per cent company pension would need a top-up, whereas someone with no company pension would need the full $10,500 to reach the guaranteed level.

Because private pension plans normally reduce pension benefits by about two per cent per year where early retirement is taken, a worker aged 60 would be getting 30 per cent of pre-retirement earnings or $6,000 per year. He or she would therefore require a top-up of about $4,500 per year to reach the guaranteed level. These costs would be reduced when the worker reaches age 65 and becomes eligible for OAS and Canada pension plan benefits.

In addition to the early retirement fund, Ontario would provide the same benefits, such as the Ontario health insurance plan and property tax grants, to the early retirement group as are currently provided to those aged 65 and over.

The early retirement fund would expire as soon as early retirement reform is achieved under the CPP. The dynamics of federal-provincial jurisdiction are especially relevant as regard such reform. The new government in Ottawa has preached a new era of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments and the time is ripe to put these words of co-operation to the test.

Two categories of workers would be eligible for the early retirement fund benefits. In the first category are those workers aged 60 and over who are employed in heavy labour, such as construction, manual labour and mining. In the second category are those workers aged 60 and over whose employers agree to hire younger workers to replace workers retiring before age 65.

Many of Ontario's older workers are in heavy labour occupations and would be delighted to retire before age 65 if only their post-retirement incomes were adequate. In Belgium, early retirement at age 60 is available for those who have been engaged in "heavy, dangerous or unhealthy work." In Greece, workers can take early retirement at age 60 if they have been employed in heavy or unhealthy work environments.

No doubt all members know people who are in this group, either as friends or as constituents. They are people who have worked hard with their bodies and have been subject to greater occupational risks than most workers. These people have contributed to the building of Ontario. They have paid their fair share and more. They deserve the right, if they so choose, to retire at 60 years of age with the guarantee of a decent income.

Earlier this week, in one of the most moving and emotional moments I have witnessed in my nine years in this House, the Premier (Mr. Davis) announced his decision to retire. The Premier has worked hard for the people of this province for many years, and he well deserves the chance to begin a new chapter in his life without the burden of his responsibilities as Premier. As I thought about this later, it occurred to me that what my resolution is all about is to allow other people to do what the Premier is doing.

The other category of workers that would be eligible for benefits from the proposed early retirement fund is those aged 60 and over whose employers agree to hire younger workers to replace workers retiring before the age of 65. More and more, the issue of pension reform and youth unemployment are recognized as being connected. When we look at the job opportunities for young people, we are confronted with the fact that provisions for retirement, for making more room in the work force, are inadequate and inflexible. Early retirement will create jobs, and many of those jobs will be taken by youth.

Although there was a slight decrease in the unemployment rate for young Ontarians last summer, more than 150,000 men and women between the ages of 15 and 24 are out of work in Ontario. People in this category find it especially difficult to find work. Because they have low seniority, they are affected by both halves of the last-hired, first-fired pattern.

The Ontario government has committed itself to assisting people in this group to find suitable employment. By implementing my proposal for an early retirement fund, which would open up a significant number of job opportunities for the young people of this province, the government would be actively fulfilling its commitment to Ontario's youth as well as to its older people.

In France, benefits amounting to 65 per cent of gross earnings may be claimed by workers whose employers have concluded so-called solidarity contracts with the social affairs ministry. These solidarity contracts enable workers to retire early or work part-time from age 55.

In Belgium, a full pension may be claimed by any male worker opting to retire from age 60. Denmark allows early retirement at the age of 55 with full pension.

As of May 1, 1984, workers above a certain age in West Germany are entitled to retire early from working life and to receive from their last employer a special allowance amounting to 65 per cent of their final gross earnings. If an unemployed person or, in small firms, a trainee is engaged as a replacement for the retiring employee, the employer can recover 35 per cent of the cost of the early retirement allowance.

Ontario should follow the progressive examples set by those countries and make early retirement available to those aged 60 and over whose employers agree to replace retiring workers with younger workers.

My proposal for an early retirement program in Ontario is just one part of the basic and substantial pension reforms that the New Democratic Party has proposed which can be made now by the Ontario government.

In addition to the early retirement resolution, this past June I also tabled a resolution in the House dealing with income security for older workers. There are 36,000 unemployed workers in Ontario aged 55 and over. Few of these men and women will find new full-time jobs comparable to their previous employment, because they are victims of the too-young-to-retire, too-old-to-hire trap. As the Conference Board of Canada has documented, employers are reluctant to hire older workers, even in good economic times.

The financial impact of layoffs and plant closings on older workers is substantial and immediate. Studies show that workers about 55 years old are in the peak savings and income period. Most of their savings are set aside for retirement purposes. About half are still paying off mortgages. These are the people hardest hit by layoffs and plant closings. These are people who have devoted years of service to their employers, and they deserve something better in return for their service.

4:50 p.m.

Plant closings in this province have reached almost epidemic proportions. Hardly a week goes by without news of some new closing. Last week, the Burns food plant in Kitchener laid off 600 workers; in September, Alcan Canada give the pink slip to 485 workers in Kingston; Wabasso Inc. in Welland is leaving 490 workers without their jobs; and 550 more workers were shown the door by Black and Decker in Barrie when they closed the plant.

We read these reports, but we do not read about the human suffering caused by them, or about the loss of savings, the loss of a house that someone has worked to pay for, the family problems that arise in such times of economic crisis or the loss of dignity.

We hear about these problems from our constituents. I hear from such people quite frequently. What does a member tell one of his constituents when he is contacted about such problems? What can he tell him? How does one represent constituents in the Legislature when one is entrusted with the responsibility of speaking and acting on their behalf?

Just today, I received a letter which I want to put on the record because it shows what the feelings are out there.

"Dear Mr. Di Santo: I am returning the form to you" -- my Queen's Park report -- "and also I am including this letter to show my appreciation for your efforts to get people like me out of the present situation in the work force.

"I am one of those unfortunate people aged 60. In the last four years, I have been unemployed three times due to the fact that the occupation I chose to follow has now gone youth-oriented and computerized.

"I have been on UIC benefits since January of this year, and my benefits run out just after Christmas. Quite frankly, I am worried and scared about my circumstances. I never thought I would end up like this in Canada, and having to compete with all the young, energetic, unemployed people out there fills me with complete hopelessness.

"I think it is imperative that people like myself, who feel physically and spiritually burnt out, should be allowed to leave the work force with dignity intact. Please keep up the effort on our behalf for early retirement. Some of us, like me, are getting desperate. If I do not get a job by Christmas, I do not really know what I will do."

This is the predicament of many people about whom I am talking. Clearly, Ontario should provide more protection to older workers than is now offered by the layoff provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

Further, corporations that lay off older workers must recognize they have an additional social responsibility to those people, which under present conditions they can easily avoid. The right of older workers of this province to enjoy the later years of their lives, which should be the best years, in security and comfort must be guaranteed. The emphasis of the program I proposed in June is on increasing corporate responsibility to workers who have been involuntarily retired after a life of productive work.

My income security resolution consists of a two-part program of income support for older workers unemployed as a result of permanent layoff or plant closures.

Under part 1 of the program, workers aged 55 or older with five or more years of seniority whose employment is terminated by layoff or plant closing would be treated for company pension purposes as if they were 65. In addition to immediately paying full pension benefits, a company would maintain all the employee benefits, such as the Ontario health insurance plan, supplementary medical insurance, dental plan and life insurance, until normal retirement age.

Employers must come to recognize that they have a responsibility to the older workers of this province, and the government must be the leader in impressing upon them that they have this responsibility.

Company pension plans, on average, provide long-service employees with only 40 per cent of their pre-retirement income. To avoid financial disaster, it is necessary to supplement the incomes of older laid-off workers.

Under part 2 of the program, a layoff fund financed by a payroll tax on all Ontario employers would provide a bridging supplement equal to the Canada pension plan and old age security entitlements, about $650 a month, for a person earning the average industrial wage. A laid-off worker would receive benefits from this fund until he or she found new employment or reached retirement age.

We have an obligation to the older workers of this province, and the time has come to act on it. The early retirement resolution I am putting before the members today and my resolution on income security for older workers are things that can be done and I believe must be done if we are to face up to our obligation. I urge all my colleagues to give it careful consideration.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon. Before coming to a critical and objective assessment of the resolution we have before us this afternoon, let me make an interesting side note.

In all the time I have been in this Legislature, I have never seen the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) move to a new oratorical style. I have never seen him read a speech from beginning to end and be so managed and controlled as he was with what he put before us today. Normally, he speaks from the heart, spontaneously and with conviction. It seemed today more as if he were presenting a structured presentation that was put forward as part of a party platform. Perhaps the members opposite are giving us a sneak preview of what is coming a few months down the line as part of what they consider to be a cornerstone of their election platform.

Notwithstanding that, the points of view put forward have been interesting and are deserving of consideration and comment, and that is what I intend to do this afternoon. We have before us a proposal whereby early retirement would be provided for two categories of people: older workers in the heavy labour occupations, which I think is a thoughtful proposal, and older workers who should be replaced on retirement by younger people. These are two very sensitive areas, and there may be some merit in trying to make extra considerations in the pension field.

As I understand the resolution, the early retirement fund would be established through a payroll tax on employers, and benefits would be 50 per cent of the average industrial wage. A part of the resolution does perplex me. Perhaps if the honourable member has time left, he will respond to it.

When he referred to exempting new firms, indicating a five-year period, I was not clear what he meant by an exemption for firms with a higher proportion of younger workers. I did not know whether he was talking about a third of them being younger and in what age bracket, or whether he meant 50 per cent or 60 per cent. Neither am I clear on what was meant by exempting firms that provide more generous early retirement benefits. By what standards do we consider a firm to be providing more generous early retirement benefits than the norm?

It would be interesting to have answers to those questions, because I find those concepts rather fuzzy without further elaboration.

5 p.m.

In any event, having said that, early retirement is an option that firms have used with some success. I remind members of the Legislature that the Ontario government itself created a voluntary retirement option in the summer of 1983. Under the Ontario plan, employees had to be over 60 years of age and have at least 20 years of government service, or their age and years of service had to total 90.

More than 1,000 -- specifically 1,039 -- Ontario public servants took advantage of that plan. This government has had direct experience with regard not only to the concept but also to the application of early retirement. We as a government have also had the benefit of observing it in the private sector. I would say that from these observations and industry conditions we see emerging two major flaws in the resolution being proposed this afternoon by the member for Downsview.

The major flaw is that in both the private sector and in government, early retirement programs work only when offered on a periodic basis. Some people seem to think the magic formula is every five years. I think that is debatable. It seems to be a cyclical thing and one has to take that into account. I do not think this resolution does so.

Voluntary early retirement programs are often established in the private sector because they make good business sense. I think that has been demonstrated clearly as we have come through this difficult economic period. Many firms have implemented those types of programs. At other times when companies have been put in jeopardy because of difficult times, with large layoffs being expected in order to have the firms survive and ensure there will be employment for a large number of their faithful employees, they have offered early retirement to save the jobs of the younger workers with less seniority. This is meritorious and makes good business sense because it does preserve a company's ability to keep the work force intact.

In these cases, the employer presents and negotiates an appropriate retirement package with the employees or with the employees' union. Once done, the individual employees who qualify can make the choice of accepting the offer or remaining on the job. Quite often in the private sector the experience to date appears to have been that these firms and employees have been able to come to acceptable arrangements. The percentage factor I have available to me is that in the private sector up to 60 per cent or 65 per cent of eligible employees have been taking advantage of these types of early retirement offers.

Interestingly enough, by comparison the Ontario government employees have been less quick to take advantage of such programs. Apparently only one third of the eligible public servants have taken advantage of the voluntary retirement options that have been made available to them to date.

If voluntary early retirement has been offered by a firm, usually a number of years have to pass before the next age group that would be in a position to consider an early voluntary retirement proposal comes forward. With the cyclical nature of retirement in companies, it would appear the idea of maintaining a permanent fund for that purpose would be inconsistent or incompatible with the reality of the work place.

It would be difficult to determine what the initial takeout would be with the establishment of such a fund. If the benefits were not as generous as those negotiated separately with companies, then the fund clearly would be undersubscribed. On the other hand, if it turned out it was more generous, then there would be a large run on the fund and the need to enrich it would probably become clear very early in the game. There are uncertainties about the affordability of such a fund even if it was workable from the other aspect upon which I touched upon a few moments ago.

It is interesting to note that if the Canada pension plan were used to fund full retirement premiums below the age of 65, of course the costs to employers and employees would be very substantial. I think that is taken as read; I think we all understand that problem. While these things may be desirable, sometimes we do have to look at the realities of it from the standpoint of not only the ability of government, through levies by way of payroll tax or whatever, but also that of companies through their own financial capability to afford these types of programs. The desire may be there, but the financial wherewithal just may not be realistically available.

I think to have a suggestion at this time that a payroll tax be imposed to achieve this end purpose probably is the worst possible scenario. At a time when many small companies, whether they have been in business for four years or for six years, have just gone into the private sector to compete and have found themselves pressed to the wall, this is just not the time to impose further levies on the private sector, as meritorious as the proposal may be.

I have pointed out at the same time some of the efficiencies in the proposal.

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Williams: While I wanted to address some of the charges currently being imposed under the Workers' Compensation Board as an example of the pressure that business is under today, I will have to leave that until another day for further debate. I will simply say that I believe the proposal, while it may have some merit, is not affordable or appropriate at this time.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the other members of the House to discuss the resolution introduced by my colleague the member for Downsview and to say right off, out front, that I support the resolution that has been put forward. I do not necessarily support all the mechanics of how the member wants to fund the plan he has in mind. I do not particularly --

Mr. Nixon: Make the rich pay.

Mr. Mancini: Yes, that would be a good idea. But I think his commitment has some merit and deserves some positive support.

Over the past months I have been meeting with many people from the business community in the constituency of Essex South. They have brought to my attention something similar to what the member has proposed today: that is, to provide for elderly workers -- I should not even use that term -- for people who have been in the work force for a long number of years, some type of plan for early retirement only if the company from which the worker is retiring will replace that worker with a younger worker.

The plan they put forward to me was to use the unemployment insurance scheme. At the time it sounded very good. Why pay a young individual in his 20s or 30s unemployment insurance to stay at home when we could transfer that money to a worker in his 60s and provide what the younger person really wants: a job to support the obligations he has incurred, a job to provide some stability and some future to this person's life?

5:10 p.m.

I listened very carefully to the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams), and he mentioned that the government of Ontario had introduced some kind of voluntary plan to encourage workers to retire early from the public service; I believe he used that example. I could not quite fully understand how these people were financially compensated. However, I assume they must have been financially compensated to be enticed into early retirement.

I do not understand why he would be in favour of a plan that would entice senior civil servants with many years of service to retire but would be opposed to someone who worked in a factory or in the construction industry for 30 or 35 years having the same opportunity. Why would he want to give this benefit to civil servants only and not to everybody else in society? These people to whom the member is denying this privilege are paying the freight for him and the thousands and thousands of civil servants he employs.

I say to the member who introduced this resolution that his suggestion for funding, which would place further and greater taxation on business, should be looked at again.

I note he does want to exempt new businesses; that is, businesses that have been established for fewer than five years. We all know it is very difficult to start a new business and to make it successful. I guess the first three to five years are the most crucial years as far as a new business is concerned. However, in today's economy, with the way things are now, with the new technologies that are coming out every day and with the type of competition we are seeing not only within our own boundaries but also worldwide, I am not sure whether that exemption would be enough.

I firmly believe there are more social programs we could implement and fund if we had not only contributions from the companies and the government but also minor contributions from the workers themselves.

I would see no problem in being able to sell such a program. When we look around our province, we see 160,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 out of work, and we see that the government of Ontario is not doing anything about it. The only action we have seen on the unemployment issue as far as young people are concerned is the budget that was brought down by the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) some months ago, when he very cleverly and almost with a magician's wand seemed to be able to create new programs out of the air to take place one year from now, two years from now and in some cases even longer.

We have not addressed the issue of youth unemployment. The Treasurer's budget of several months ago has done nothing to alleviate that issue. All we got was a little bit of smoke and mirrors from the now leadership contender, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman). As he enters this leadership race and tries to present himself as the next Premier of Ontario, as I am told will at least half a dozen other members of the government party, I say to them that they will not be able to skirt the issue of youth unemployment. They will not be able to talk about platitudes. They have had 41 years of uninterrupted rule. They are now finishing up another four years of a big majority government --

Mr. Nixon: Thank God it is the last.

Mr. Mancini: As my colleague says, this will be the last. They have just finished up another four years of a large majority government, and they have done literally nothing about youth unemployment. They have always pointed the finger at Ottawa, but now that their kissing cousins are in Ottawa they will not be able to do that so readily. They will not be able to point their fingers at Brian Mulroney the way they so easily did at Pierre Trudeau.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: He sure made a good target; that is true.

Mr. Mancini: I think that bothered them, Bob.

Mr. Nixon: You got them. They are white-lipped and trembling.

Mr. Mancini: The sly technique that has been used so successfully by the group across the floor has now disappeared. They are now in the race for a new leader and will no longer be able to sell platitudes to the people.

They should not reject my friend's proposal. They should refine his proposal, if they are actually interested in it. lf they are interested in the 160,000 young people who are out of work, they should refine my friend's proposal and see what they can do to make it better.

We heard from the member for Oriole that the government has some kind of voluntary plan for civil servants. That is all fine and well, but we need help for other people than civil servants.

I would like to close by saying that now we have Brian Mulroney in office in Ottawa, I am sure the Conservatives at Queen's Park will be able, without any problems whatsoever, to work out a deal using the unemployment insurance scheme to fund a program that would encourage older workers to retire and, therefore, provide new jobs for young people. Of course, we would ask those companies for an absolute commitment that, once they took on those individuals, they would keep them for at least a minimum number of years.

I would like to conclude by saying I support the principle of my colleague's resolution 21.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in support of my colleague's resolution for a new voluntary early retirement scheme. I believe strongly that the idea of voluntary early retirement is in a sense the next frontier in our social security system, the next step that needs to be taken.

Obviously it will need ultimately to be part of a package of reforms to the Canada pension plan that include enrichment of retirement benefits under the Canada pension plan at normal retirement age and enrichment of benefits to persons who suffer long-term disability. Until such time as some government some day gets around to reforming the Canada pension plan, I think there is a role for Ontario in charting new territory.

We can ask ourselves why we have retirement at the magic age of 65. I asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), who is obviously very interested in this burning issue. Age 65 was set by Chancellor Bismarck, advising the King of Prussia about 100 years ago, just prior to the accession of William Grenville Davis. The Iron Chancellor set 65 as the age for the first public pension system in the Kingdom of Prussia and it remains in 1984 the age of retirement in the kingdom of Canada. Few other western industrial nations have retained age 65 as the only eligibility age for retirement pensions.

5:20 p.m.

My colleague the member for Downsview indicated that a number of countries in western Europe -- France, Belgium, Denmark, Britain, Greece, even Germany; it is no longer Prussia, it is West Germany -- have retirement benefits available on a voluntary early retirement basis from age 60 for those who have been unemployed for 52 weeks in the preceding 18 months. The Federal Republic of Germany has recognized that elderly workers are not competitive under today's economic conditions and that they deserve special consideration, including the option of obtaining early retirement at age 60.

We in Canada are in some kind of time warp with respect to the necessary social programs appropriate to a modern industrial country. We still pretend that individual responsibility and initiative, those magic key words and slogans, those epithets, those cruel frauds that are bandied about by cynical politicians, can somehow disguise the reality, that we have many tens of thousands of older workers who have been abandoned by the depression in our economy and will never find jobs again.

They have been laid off after a lifetime of employment and have lost their pension benefits and their retirement entitlements. They will never find another job and their unemployment insurance will soon be replaced by welfare payments. For those thousands of older workers who are never going to get back to work, this government's only message is: "You can receive welfare. Make do until you turn 65 and then everything will be fine for you."

What kind of callousness is that? What kind of cloud-cuckoo-land do policymakers live in? Do they not meet people in their riding offices, as we do, who have been laid off? I am sure they do. We meet people in their late 50s or early 60s who have been laid off and will never go back to work. We meet them every Saturday, every Monday, every Wednesday, whenever we have our office hours. We meet them by the score. We all know they are out there. We all understand the realities of the economy today. These people are not going to go back to work. Nobody is going to hire them.

The responsibility is very clear on public policymakers to come up with the appropriate response. Very simply, the appropriate response is some kind of voluntary early retirement scheme.

So far, I have talked about older workers, particularly those in heavy-duty occupations who, for various reasons, economic or physical, cannot continue to work. What about our youngsters? What about the legion of unemployed younger workers in this province? My colleague the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) referred to 160,000 unemployed young people between the ages of 15 and 24 in this province. Yet a moment ago the member for Oriole questioned the affordability of a voluntary early retirement scheme that would retire older workers to make room for younger workers. He questioned the affordability of a scheme that would make it possible for older workers to retire so younger workers could have a job.

What is the cost of an economic system that condemns 160,000 young people to unemployment? Are we going to raise a whole generation in this province who will never have the opportunity to earn their own paycheque or know what it means to get a job and bring home a paycheque? Does this government want a whole generation to grow up on welfare cheques? Is that the policy of this government? That is the consequence of the policy of this government.

Everybody understands the economy has undergone a fundamental change. The job opportunities that were available for my generation when I graduated from school in 1964 are gone for ever. My generation had the opportunity of 10, 12 or 15 job choices as soon as we got out the school door. That is not an exaggeration. Those days are gone for ever. We have a whole generation that knows what this government does not know, that the number of new job opportunities is limited by the revolution in technology. Unless we are prepared to start considering sharing the work that is available in our economy, particularly sharing it with our younger workers, we are condemning a whole group of people to permanent unemployment.

What kind of a generation will it be, this army of 160,000 young people who cannot find work? Where will they learn the discipline of going to work in the morning and working and earning their own living? Will they learn that on welfare, unemployment insurance, temporary work assignments or in makeup training programs for which there is no job at the end? We all know the answer to those rhetorical questions is no. They will learn the discipline at work by having the opportunity to get a job.

Any government that does not do everything in its power to put this army of young unemployed workers to work is skirting the kind of social catastrophe that is hard for some of us to contemplate. What does it mean for a society when 10 per cent, 15 per cent or 20 per cent of its young people are permanently locked out of jobs? What kind of society is that?

When we talk about people who do not have the opportunity to work, form families or do anything except hang around the house and draw welfare, we are not talking about a small number of people. We are talking about a huge sector of our youth work force. This is a permanent phenomenon and not some kind of temporary aberration, a permanent reality that public policy is going to have to catch up with. We do not have a lot of time for public policy to catch up.

The longer-term job creation strategies necessary to create new jobs will be, as the Treasurer is discovering, much more difficult to implement than the rhetoric of a budget would persuade us. There are important social policy initiatives that can be taken and voluntary early retirement is one of them. I have absolutely no doubt the reality of the economy and of youth unemployment will force this government and the federal government to respond. If they fail, it will be at their own peril.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the member for Downsview for introducing such an important subject for consideration in private members' hour.

I do not believe we have spent enough time during my sitting here in the Legislature discussing this important subject of pensions. Certainly, there are a number of us in the House this afternoon who have spent considerable time working on this: the vice-chairman of the select committee on pensions who has already eloquently addressed the subject raised in this resolution, the member for Oriole, the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). Many of us in this House know the urgency that should be attached to the whole subject of pensions for our constituents and for all the people out there. I commend the member for Downsview.

Mr. McClellan: That happened three years ago.

Mr. Cousens: I know. I am complimenting the member for Downsview for bringing up the subject. I do not think we can bring it up enough because there are so many things that need to be considered about it.

I would also like to commend the member for Downsview for the genuine concern he is showing for workers and those people who have a genuine need to leave the work force, be looked after and have some kind of sustenance and support that can be provided by a tangible, realistic type of pension.

In addressing this whole subject, I find I have to take a somewhat different position from that of the member for Essex South who spoke as one who could support the whole issue except, to quote his words, how he would pay for it. That is probably one of the reasons I personally am not able to go along with the recommendations being suggested. It has an awful lot to do with cost, which was addressed very well by the member for Oriole.

We really have to face up to the fact that any program we are going to introduce or have also has to be costed. It has to be financed. We have to figure out how it is going to be paid for. The difference between this side of the House and possibly the other side of the House is that when one is in government, one has to be responsible for how it is going to be paid for.

5:30 p.m.

Today I would like to share with honourable members three of the concerns I have about this resolution. The first is cost, the second is a total review and a whole perspective on the reforms that are needed in pensions, and the third concerns some of the other programs that are being introduced by our government to help those people who are in definite need.

The first has to do with the cost of implementing an early retirement fund. What we are talking about is a fund that would be paid for by employers. How do employers find the costs? They have to increase labour costs. This has the effect of discouraging hiring. It imposes a competitive disadvantage on Ontario firms in relation to those of other jurisdictions. I say to all honourable members that we have to look at the cost of doing business. We want Ontario to continue to be strong economically, but we cannot then come along and start adding more taxes to them.

Members should realize that there are many taxes that a businessman or businesswoman has to face, and this becomes an additional burden on the income generator. We are saying employers would be affected by the tax, that they are already facing increased costs and that we must therefore not impose an unfair additional burden on our hardworking, conscientious manufacturing base and those people who would have to pay for it.

There is already a significant shortfall between the existing rate of contributions and the rate necessary to pay current benefits. The current combined employer-employee Canada pension plan contribution rate is only 3.6 per cent. The rate will have to increase to about 11 per cent in the future in order to pay for existing benefits, including eligibility for full retirement pension at age 65. We just have to realize where that 11 per cent comes from. That is not a high number; it is an accurate, realistic assessment of the costs of the program we are currently trying to provide for Canadians. That program is going to be short of funds in the near future unless something is done to address that.

The lowering of the eligibility age for full pensions would push the cost of the Canada pension plan above 11 per cent, and many people do not feel this would be appropriate. Where do we find the money for it?

I say to the member for Downsview that cost is a major concern and I say to the member for Essex South that cost is a major concern. Any time we make changes to any program or introduce new services we have to address the cost element. For that reason alone I was surprised the member for Essex South was able to support it. I guess costs are not important to that good, honourable member.

Mr. Van Horne: Oh, he is a very sensible fellow.

Mr. Cousens: I know he is and I respect him greatly, except for his judgement on this matter.

I would also like to suggest that the whole subject of pensions should not be looked at from the perspective of only one point but that there are so many issues pertaining to pensions in this province and in Canada that should begin to be advanced. I was pleased that, when Ontario called for pension reform, one of the major priorities given to it was reform for single elderly pensioners. We could spend a whole afternoon looking at that, but let us tie the recommendations being presented by the member for Downsview to some of the other important recommendations that are part of the reform suggestions that have been made by our Treasurer, because we see a real need for the single elderly.

We see a need for increased protection in coverage for private pensions. I would like to see something done about pension portability. Why is it that we have not begun to do more on that?

Mr. Mancini: Why does your government not do something about it?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: We need better pensions for women. We need improved Canada pension plans for survivors and the disabled. We need to do something about pensions for people who work part-time.

There are many issues that have to be faced when we are talking about pensions. Not to take the whole picture and look at it in a complete and honest way is to isolate --

Mr. Martel: Twelve billion dollars in unemployment insurance last year. Where did that come from?

Mr. Cousens: Well, the honourable member --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre has the floor. He showed considerable courtesy as the other debaters made their input.

Mr. Cousens: They have made limited input. I am trying to give the facts so people truly understand that there is a direction that can be taken.

May I just go on to say in addressing the concern raised by the member for Downsview that it has to do with the fact that there are people who are over 55, who need to be retrained, who are looking for new opportunities and who have little choice to do something about it. What can government policy be to help those people?

Let me tell honourable members that this government has done a great deal to help people to get retrained and to get back into the work force in other ways. Look at the Ontario skills fund, which was announced in the last budget, where $150 million is being invested over the next three years to help experienced workers adapt to the new demands of this technological area.

I also bring up the new $2,000 incentive that will be provided to employers who will hire and train laid-off workers over the age of 45 and a government program targeting $40 million for special training initiatives designed to help women and older workers adversely affected by technological change. These are programs our government is introducing and trying to provide for those people about whom the member for Downsview is concerned.

I say to that member and to all members, as we look at pension reform, we have to look at the whole picture. In looking at that whole picture, we can then come forward with recommendations that will affect all the people of Ontario. In that respect, we can lead forward to the next stage where we are able to do something for those who really need it.

I wish the member well with his recommendations. I think his heart is in the right place, but I wish he would look at some of the costs, some of the overall impact that could be taken to the whole area of pension reform and also realize that our government is trying to do something significant to help those people who need help right now.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no hesitation in expressing my support for the resolution. I congratulate the honourable member for bringing it forward. I think his solution is as practical as most of the ones associated with the sorts of situations we have faced since the economy of Ontario has taken such a serious downturn in the last decade.

I was interested in looking at the unemployment statistics pertaining to our young people. My colleague the member for Essex South has already referred to the 160,000 people between the ages of 15 and 25 who are unemployed. I simply want to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that this is about two per cent worse than it was in June when the Treasurer brought forward his "bold new program" to improve the situation vis-à-vis youth employment, or unemployment.

I feel it is a serious disappointment that the results have been so negative. In fact the employment opportunity levels have gone down over the last month and therefore the unemployment levels have gone up. This is at the very time when many of the young people are returning to their studies, going to community colleges, universities and back to high school. Under these circumstances, when we would expect the number of young people looking for jobs to go down, in fact the figure has gone up by a bit over two per cent. That is certainly a clear indication that the initiatives the last speaker was lauding have been unsuccessful and that we have yet to find the solution to the problem of youth employment that has been before us for the last four or five years.

I see no objection whatsoever to the establishment of a program whereby assistance is provided for the retirement of the people described in the resolution. These people are associated with heavy industry and they are of an age when they still can contribute to the community in many ways. The fact that they are retired will guarantee an opening up of additional jobs for young people.

5:40 p.m.

I used to be a teacher. I have been expecting to be sent back to the classroom over these many years, but I am still here. Frankly, I exercised, for once in my life, rather ill judgement when I took a payout of my previous contributions to the Ontario teachers' superannuation fund. As a matter of fact, I took the money out and built a machinery shed on the farm. There it is, rusting away, while some people in this House, as teachers, have been able to maintain their contributions. I do not blame them for that, because they feel their positions are perhaps a little more precarious and they are prepared to go back into the classroom, if the classroom would ever have them.

The point of this is that those of us who are teachers have friends between the ages of 55 and 60 who are taking a retirement at full pension, or close to full pension, fully indexed. It is paid largely by contributions from the taxpayers of Ontario into the teachers' superannuation fund. The teachers themselves pay eight per cent on their earnings, but this is a long way from funding in any actuarial way the requirements for paying their pension.

The teachers' pensions are 70 per cent of their best five years -- my chief adviser in this matter nodded assent -- so the pensions are 70 per cent of their best five years. Many of the teachers, as the members know, who are finally getting salaries somewhere close to what they should be earning, such as up in the $50,000 range --

Mr. Martel: Try directors of education.

Mr. Nixon: We are not talking about directors and all of the heavy overlay of the outer fringe of the upper crust that was imposed on the education system by the outgoing Premier, but these people are being well looked after. Year by year, we make additional payments, usually in the ball park of $200 million, in the funding of the teachers' superannuation fund and those cheques go flooding out.

Teachers are notoriously long-lived. It is because of the adrenalin stimulation they get day by day as they face their classes. The old tubes do not get blocked quite as readily as when people are sitting around on a high-cholesterol diet listening to interesting speeches by their colleagues.

These long-lived teachers retire at age 57 at 70 per cent of their best five years. The average of their best five years would be between $45,000 and $50,000, with many of them well beyond that and some of them even approaching the salaries that we pay to the public service in this jurisdiction. Their pension fund is largely paid for and financed by the grateful and generous taxpayers of Ontario.

I am not complaining unduly about the fact that the teachers are taking early retirement. After all, that is built into the system just as there is a prospect in my honourable friend's resolution of opening up jobs to young people who have been unemployed and are lounging around the galleries of the Legislature or some other interesting place. We want to make jobs for them. When the teachers retire, qualified young people who have gone through our university system and taken teacher training can to some extent move into those jobs as they become vacant.

The fact that the student enrolment continues to go downward means the returns in this particular program as far as making employment is concerned are not as good as we would hope when we looked at it statistically perhaps a decade ago. But certainly this instance, particularly where we are giving special consideration to those firms that will undertake a specific program to hire young people to fill the vacancies, has much to recommend it.

I hope that members from all sides of the House will support this and that we can go forward on the basis of this resolution to introduce some legislation that will have some advantageous and positive effects on the employment prospects for the young people in Ontario.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution of my colleague and to say that I am always amazed at the main argument I hear from some members of the government party relating to costs; that is, any time one is trying to provide adequate pension coverage it is going to be costly. I have to wonder why, when we are dealing specifically with older workers who are the victims of plant shutdowns, it is always the workers who do not have any relief from those costs. I have never quite been able to understand that.

When we hear about all the things the government is doing and what needs to be done and the importance of doing it with respect to pensions, I cannot help but laugh a little. I can recall October 30, 1979, and then a debate in the House that followed on November 15, 1979, on a resolution I moved in this House. At the time, it achieved support from members of all parties for some minor reforms to private pension plans. They were very minor reforms, reducing the vesting period to five years, insuring full portability and providing some protection for terminations. Five or six years later, we are still waiting for action on those suggestions.

The select committee on pensions filed its report in the House in 1982. We have never had a debate on it. It made a lot of the same recommendations as well as a few more. There was nothing that dealt with the basic problems in taking an overall look at pensions in this province. We have had it for the last two or two and a half years with no action on it.

Members across the way talk about having to look at the broader scope. In five or six years we have not been able to get to first base with even simple changes, which are not ideological at all, that would put some improvement into private pension plans. The honourable member is making a mockery of this debate when he uses that kind of argument. When it comes to any real reform of pensions, this government not only has been in a 30-year sleep but is also absolutely comatose.

In this House we have raised a number of times the issue of older workers and what happens to them. We have raised it as a result of plant closures. There is a long list of them. There is Consolidated-Bathurst, Canada Packers, SKF, Gardner-Denver -- one could go on and on.

For every plant in every survey we have done, whether it was SKF or Consolidated-Bathurst, even as much as two or three years after those plant shutdowns a sizeable number of those workers are still not working. Many of them have difficulty because of their age. When they get into upgrading, educational or retraining programs, they have difficulty in coping. They are also reduced to spending what savings they have. We have sentenced them not only to the loss of a job now but also to a much lower standard of living in terms of what they had been saving for their retirement.

We have this specific group of workers that my colleague's resolution tries to deal with. I think we owe them something more than we have given them in Ontario.

The second concern deals with what we are going to do for jobs for our people and what combination -- because it is going to be a combination of proposals -- will provide jobs for young people. Why is the idea of voluntary earlier retirement for older workers not a good part of the mix of things we could do to take care of the problems of older workers?

I remind the members of this House -- they may not be aware of it -- that is an approach that even business is coming around to in Ontario today. If one talks to unions, one will find that the Big Three are trying to improve on the 30-and-out at 55. That has now spread to the automotive parts plants. Paragon Tools in Windsor has just negotiated a contract with the United Automobile Workers that allows for early unreduced pensions with as little as 20 years' service, regardless of one's age.

Hiram Walker negotiated a work-force guarantee with the union, a guarantee of 500 jobs. When they could not meet that guarantee and saw they were going to go down to 420 or 425 jobs, what did they do? They negotiated a very generous earlier retirement to take care of those workers. That is the pattern that is being set today in negotiations. Why is this government so unwilling to take a look? It is one of the answers to the serious problem of early retirement that faces us.

It seems to me that what we have before us is a good, positive, reasonable and responsible suggestion by my colleague. I suggest to the members across the way, although I do not have much hope of them responding, that before they reject it out of hand or before they give us claptrap about how we need to look at the broader view and at the cost, they come up with a better proposal themselves. This problem is urgent. We have to deal with it and deal with it now.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I am glad so many people took part in the debate on my resolution. However, I am disappointed that the members opposite did not look at the serious problem my resolution tries to solve. I admit it is a limited resolution and not one that will solve the whole problem of early retirement and the whole problem of young people who are looking for employment. It is only a mechanism I am proposing to this House. I hope members will take it in that spirit and will not reject it outright.

There are many people out there who have come to me and who go to all the members of this House with very serious problems. They are people in their late 50s or early 60s who are out of work and cannot find work and there is no system of social assistance in place for them. My resolution is only an attempt, and I hope the government members will support it. I am open to any suggestion to make it better, more proper and more adequate.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on resolution 27:

Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Cousens, Drea, Elgie, Eves, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kolyn, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McLean, Pollock, Robinson, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Sterling, Taylor, G. W., Wells, Williams -- 25.

EARLY RETIREMENT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on resolution 33:

Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Cousens, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kolyn, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McLean, Norton, Pollock, Robinson, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Sterling, Taylor, G. W., Wells, Williams, Wiseman -- 28.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I might indicate the business of the House for this evening, tomorrow and next week. I think I already indicated earlier the reports that will be debated this evening.

Tomorrow, Friday morning, we will do the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

On Monday afternoon, we will continue the estimates of the Ministry of Northern affairs until six o'clock. There will be no evening sitting on Monday.

On Tuesday, October 16, in the afternoon, we will debate legislation. We will resume the debate on the committee of the whole House stage of Bill 141. The legislation to be done on Tuesday evening will be announced tomorrow or Monday.

On Wednesday, October 17, the usual three committees have permission to sit.

On Thursday, October 18, in the afternoon, there will be private members' public business in the names of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) and the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio). In the evening there will be the debate on a motion to adopt the recommendations of the 11th report of the select committee on the Ombudsman.

On Friday, October 19, we will continue the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

The House recessed at 5:56 p.m.

11 octobre 1984