Journal des débats 1985-oct-31 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Fulton: In the few months since the Liberal government came into office, we have undertaken a detailed review of the long-term needs for interregional transit services in the greater Toronto area along with various options for meeting those needs. From our review, it has become apparent that the demand for this type of service is now and will continue to be both pressing and extensive.

For this reason we have determined that the expansion of GO Transit services must be immediately expedited if we are to respond to the critical needs of this important economic region of Ontario. Our assessment has led us to conclude that it would be fiscally irresponsible to proceed with the GO advanced light rail transit program and that a switch to conventional bilevel equipment is the only practical approach.

On the basis of our review, I would like to outline for the honourable members today what the Liberal government intends to do to provide for the staged implementation of improvements to GO services. It will allow us to get maximum benefit from capital investments in the shortest possible time as well as provide almost immediate improvement in some key areas.

Basically, it means extending full GO train service to Burlington and Whitby and upgrading the existing service to Milton.

Early in the new year we intend to add another train between Burlington and Toronto, meaning that three round trips will be offered each weekday. This will be followed as soon as possible by expansion to a full schedule. To that end, we have instructed Canadian National Railway to start work towards the design and construction of the necessary physical plant.

Similarly, we are working with Canadian Pacific Railway to do the required expansion of its track plant to allow for the addition of two more trains between Milton and Toronto. This expansion to five weekday round trips should take place in 1988.

Meanwhile, in the east, construction of provincially owned trackage between Pickering and Whitby will receive high priority to allow for full GO train service. Such trackage will be built on the grade already partially completed for GO-ALRT on the south side of Highway 401.

With the interim terminal station located at Brock Street in Whitby, full GO service on this portion should begin during 1988, at least a full year sooner than would have been possible with the ALRT technology. At the same time, studies will be carried out to assess the best route beyond Whitby. We will be seeking environmental approvals and consulting with local officials and the public to arrive at a mutually acceptable plan.

In the Burlington-Hamilton area, meetings with municipal and regional officials are also scheduled to secure local opinions in order to determine our future course of action.

We will require additional equipment to provide this expanded service. Preliminary negotiations are already under way with General Motors diesel division in London, Ontario, to construct locomotives and with RailTrans in Thunder Bay to build more bilevel coaches, thus creating much needed jobs in both areas.

By following the plan I have outlined for members today, I am convinced we will be able to bring the benefits of better GO services to these areas in the fastest possible fashion.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Last week my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) outlined for this House the spending plans of this government. Included in the Treasurer's statement was the announcement that my ministry plans substantial improvements to Ontario's social assistance programs.

Today, I would like to give members the details of these changes. These improvements do much more than permit social assistance recipients to keep pace with the cost of living; they also address the needs of children and high shelter costs, and they remove inequities that have developed in this complex system over the years.

The total provincial cost of these permanent improvements is $81.6 million. That amount represents an overall increase of 6.3 per cent in expenditures this fiscal year on social assistance programs. All but one of the program improvements I am announcing today are effective on January 1, 1986.

For those on family benefits and general welfare assistance -- some 470,000 people across this province -- there will be an across-the-board increase of four per cent in their basic allowances. In addition to this cost-of-living adjustment, however, we have decided on a number of additional improvements which are targeted towards assisting specific groups with distinctive needs.

Let me elaborate. The Treasurer and my cabinet colleagues have expressed particular interest in the plight of dependent children whose families must rely on social assistance payments. Accordingly, I have developed some programs for this special group of youngsters to help ensure that they can fulfil their potential as contributing members of tomorrow's society.

First, over and above the general four per cent increase, I am announcing an extra three per cent increase on average in the portion of basic allowances earmarked for some 179,000 children.

2:10 p.m.

Second, I am pleased to announce a child's winter clothing benefit to assist approximately 120,000 children whose parents are long-term recipients of family benefits. This annual payment, to be used to purchase winter clothing, will be $80 for each child. Unlike the other programs I am announcing today, which take effect on January 1, 1986, this benefit payment will be made before the end of November this year and in the month of October in future years.

Third, our improvements in social assistance programs have been extended to the handicapped children's monthly benefit. About 750 youngsters will benefit from a 10 per cent increase in the maximum payment.

I am also convinced of the need for further assistance for those on social assistance who require shelter subsidies. About 43,000 individuals and families have housing costs beyond the level recognized under the current program. They find that because of higher shelter costs they must devote an ever-increasing share of their income to housing charges. I wish to announce an increase in the maximum monthly shelter subsidy of $15 per month for eligible single persons and $40 per month for families. Discharge benefits, one-time payments for persons leaving institutions and becoming established in the community, are also going up by $50 per individual.

Finally, my ministry has moved to eliminate inequities in the social assistance system. We are increasing by $50 a month the general welfare payment for two-adult families. This will bring this group's rate more in line with the benefits paid to other recipients. About 20,000 families will gain.

We are confident that the changes I am announcing today will address the real needs of thousands of social assistance recipients, and especially the needs of children to whom we have a special responsibility. We are grateful for the participation of the federal government and the various municipalities in assisting us in funding these programs. I am thankful for the support of the members of this House in my determination to give some comfort and dignity to those who depend upon us for help.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the minister has a second statement.

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It is with pride and personal satisfaction I announce that the Child and Family Services Act will be proclaimed tomorrow, November 1.

The primary objective of this act is to promote the protection and best interests of children. I believe all who were involved in the development of this act should be proud today. It was the subject of extensive consultation and debate and reflects the clear philosophy regarding the provision of services to children and families in Ontario.

Sections of this act respecting residential placement advisory committees, secure treatment, records, intrusive procedures, psychotropic drugs and adoption disclosure will come into force over the coming months but not tomorrow. This will allow us more time to study these sections through consultation and attention to detail, and to receive and review Dr. Garber's report on adoption disclosure.

Tomorrow will be a landmark day in the history of children's services in Ontario. I would like to take this opportunity to express my deep appreciation to all the community agencies, special-interest groups, concerned individuals and everyone else, particularly members of this House, who shared in the development of this exciting and progressive piece of social legislation.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LIBERAL-NDP ACCORD

Mr. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier today. Given that the New Democratic Party has joined our party in opposing his government's gasoline tax bill --

Mr. McClellan: You are off to a bad start.

Mr. F. S. Miller: Now it is his turn to stop laughing.

Given the fact the gasoline tax bill clearly breaks the accord he signed with the NDP which says, "Continue the prebudget freeze on the ad valorem gasoline tax," and is very much a part of his agreement, will he instruct his Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) to either amend the bill or remove the bill?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Is that the position now of the official opposition? I read in yesterday's press that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. F. S. Miller) suggested his 51-member Progressive Conservative caucus may be forced to vote for an increased gas tax to stave off an election even though they are opposed to the increase. Is the new position the one I read in yesterday's press, or the one in the letter he was kind enough to send me prior to this question period today, indicating some of his concerns?

I am sure the honourable member will be aware the Treasurer is assessing his options. He will obviously take the member's point of view into consideration, but we have no thoughts at the moment of resigning.

Mr. F. S. Miller: I do not know how bad the mail service is, but I did send the Premier a letter today to that effect, and I am sure he has it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is just different from yesterday's position.

Mr. F. S. Miller: It is not at all. I oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your supplementary? Order.

Mr. F. S. Miller: Listen to the word "oppose" carefully.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your supplementary?

Mr. F. S. Miller: I have a bit of trouble understanding this.

Mr. Breaugh: We know that.

Mr. F. S. Miller: He should not have much trouble, he has been betrayed by them. Remember that, the NDP has been betrayed by them. What other part of that accord is now holding?

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. F. S. Miller: Is there going to be an election?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr. F. S. Miller: That party is not the opposition any more; the Premier has the responsibility of living or dying by the passage of his bills. Why is he introducing that bill in the House, especially when he knows he is going to lose it?

Did he get any legal advice as to whether that was a matter of confidence? Has he checked out whether, accord or not -- which seems to be ignored whenever he wishes -- he may be faced with a vote of confidence in this House?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, through you to the honourable Leader of the Opposition, the news he is giving me today about his position is different from the news we received yesterday. For all we know, his position could be different again tomorrow so we cannot count on any constancy of position for his party on this matter. As he knows, the bill has not been called at this point.

I do thank the honourable member for the letter he sent me at noon today, laying out some of his concerns. I quote what he said, "I do not think the people of our province want an election at this time, and I think they would be hostile towards a government that called an election after promising to make minority government work." That is the same gentlemen who, a couple of weeks ago, said: "The party that is ahead calls elections. That is the name of the game."

Let me assure the member we are determined to make minority government work and have been doing so very effectively and sensitively in this House with the co-operation of the more reasonable members.

Then he goes on and threatens me with an election. He says, "However, if your government is in fact planning to force an election by standing firm on this unfair tax measure and then considering it a matter of confidence, then our party is ready to face the electorate."

This is one of the boldest statements I have ever heard in my life.

Let me go to the constitutional authority on this matter and refer the member to Peter Hogg's Constitutional Law in Canada, where he says, "...but minority government restores some of the fluidity of former times and it may be sensible and constitutional for a minority government to follow the earlier precedents and revert to a laxer rule as to what amounts to a withdrawal of confidence in the government." This position is also cogently argued by Eugene Forsey.

Two out of the three finest constitutional minds in this country support our position; and the other one, two seats to my left, agrees with me as well. Three out of three; they all agree.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I wonder whether the Premier is aware that, in addition to the illustrious authorities he has quoted, we also have the McGrath committee report, in which is clearly stated the need to be more precise. We have the British experience, where literally dozens of bills have been changed and amended.

Is he aware that, in addition to those illustrious authorities, two members of the Conservative Party were present today at a meeting of the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions, whose report specifically limits a confidence motion to the very specific items that are set out in the standing committee's report. It says:

"The following matters shall be considered to be questions of confidence in the government: (1) the defeat of a motion for interim supply; (2) the defeat of a supply bill; (3) the defeat of the budget motion," meaning the overall budget motion; "(4) explicitly worded motions of want of confidence in the government; (5) the defeat of a vote on an item which the government has declared in advance of the vote to be a matter of confidence in the government; and (6) the defeat of a motion that the government enjoys the confidence of the House."

Is the Premier aware that two illustrious members of the Conservative caucus were present today and approved that particular idea with respect to confidence?

Mr. Treleaven: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The record should show that one of the Progressive Conservative members did not vote for that; he voted against that motion.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable leader of the third party has caught me by surprise on two counts. First, I was not aware there were any illustrious members of the PC caucus. Second, I am not surprised, however, that they do have a variety of different positions on this issue and that they have not done their constitutional homework. If those two right-thinking members would like to stand up and take credit in this House right now, I invite them to do so.

Mr. F. S. Miller: The glibness of the Premier's replies hides a very important fact. The apologies made by the leader of the New Democratic Party in trying to support him, even though the Premier has broken a signed agreement with him, astound me. But for that signed agreement, but for his trust in the Premier, which has now been broken, the Premier would not be there. Had we been willing to give spurious words in advance, he would not be there. We keep our word. We would not sign that kind of thing.

I want to know whether the Premier has looked at the advice the former Lieutenant Governor gave him on June 19 this year, in which he said, "The accord with the NDP has no legal force and cannot impair the powers or privileges of the Lieutenant Governor, nor of members of the Legislative Assembly." Does the Premier accept His Honour's advice, or is he simply setting up a defeat in this House so he can engineer an election?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am having trouble again. On the one hand, he accuses me of breaking an illegal agreement; on the other hand, he says it is not legal. I am having difficulty understanding the real concern of the honourable member opposite, but let me try to penetrate through that.

I think he is saying he does not want an election or he fears an election, and are we going to have an election. I think that is it. Let me assure him I have no plans to make any plans to visit the Lieutenant Governor today.

Mr. F. S. Miller: Given that he will sign anything to get power, I guess I cannot accept that either.

Mr. Martel: What did the Leader of the Opposition promise?

Mr. F. S. Miller: I promised honest government in this House and a daily consultation with the member's party, not a spurious piece of paper.

CREDIT RATING

Mr. F. S. Miller: Given that the Treasurer will be meeting with Standard and Poor's shortly, given that they will be talking to him about the creditworthiness of our province and given that confidence in Ontario is very much a function not of the balance sheet but of the government in power, what is the Treasurer going to do to instil confidence with that bond-rating agency, especially after the cavalier approach he took --

Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer.

Mr. F. S. Miller: -- towards the triple-A rating in his budget? Do not be too fast, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I intend to continue to make available information from the Treasury of the province to the rating agencies as we have done since we assumed office. They indicated they wanted to discuss the ramifications of the budget with the officials, and I look forward to that occasion.

I will be able to say to the representatives of Standard and Poor's, Moody's and anyone else who wants to discuss budgetary matters that as Treasurer I am proud that I have put before this House a carefully constructed plan which will meet the requirements of the expanding costs of the burdens of the province. It will pay in a rational and fair manner for increased costs associated with programs announced by the Premier (Mr. Peterson), programs we believe in. At the same time, we have a program that deals with our partners in municipal and school finance in a way that is understandable to them, giving them an opportunity to plan for the future that they have never had in the past.

At the same time, we are providing funds to improve the quality of our education system, to improve our road system and to provide the kind of expanded programs for housing that have been lacking in the province for so many years. I am sure we can convince the members of the rating agency, whatever their decision happens to be, that we are responsible and creditworthy.

We have swept aside many of the archaic accounting principles under which some of the bad decisions of the government preceding us were undertaken. We have taken a strong position to set aside the bad financial deals entered into by the previous government, particularly the purchase of Suncor. We believe we are approaching this --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: -- in a businesslike way and that we are strengthening the creditworthiness of the province. We trust that will be seen by any objective observer.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We have heard about four minutes of a ministerial statement not addressing the question that was put. You cut off the question after about 15 seconds; I think the record will show that. If you are not going to be fair in allocating time, would you mind adding two or three minutes to question period for that statement?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for Nipissing for his advice. However, if he looks at the standing orders, it is up to the Speaker at least to try to make the decisions during question period. I would like to advise him that the first question took two minutes. I was trying to speed things up.

If it is the wish of the members, once we come to question period I will be glad to jump up at the first question mark, rather than have two- or three-part questions plus editorial statements. I will then be glad to cut in whenever I feel the reply has used up the same length of time. I guess I have to use my own judgement.

Mr. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will also look at the amount of time the New Democratic Party used on its second supplementary.

CREDIT RATING

Mr. F. S. Miller: One thing the new Treasurer will discover is that the bond-rating agencies will cut through the bullroar he has just delivered in about two seconds. They will get down to facts. If they have had trust in this province, it has been reflected in a triple-A rating. Having cut the assets of this province to the bone, having decided there will be two per cent less growth in this province next year, and having decided there will be 50,000 fewer jobs created in this province next year, how can he expect them to believe the government will meets its obligations? How will he undo the damage?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The only reduction in asset value of any significance was the $650 million the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) spent when he was Treasurer, which is now, according to newspaper reports, worth less than $160 million. I regret that very much, but we are trying to deal with those difficult matters in a firm and businesslike way.

Mr. F. S. Miller: If the province's debt is in the range of $25 billion and it costs one-quarter point, does the Treasurer mean to tell me the $60-million final cost of that rating dropping to a double A is so insignificant to him that he is not interested in the work programs he could create? Is he not interested in retraining programs and social programs? Is he prepared to throw it away? Is that what he is telling us?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I stated in the budget that I considered a credit rating an important matter, but I went on to state that the priorities for this province are set in this House by this government and nowhere else. I have clearly indicated that the budget is a firm and businesslike approach to the problems that we as a government have inherited. We believe we have set our sights firmly on the proper, fair and judicious implementation of new programs, and particularly the provision of dollars to pay for them.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Rae: I have a question to the Premier with regard to the long-standing issue of the landfill site in Oxford county. The Premier will be aware that on a number of occasions from 1983 to 1985 he stated very clearly he was outraged by the method used to designate the site in Salford and that he was opposed to the Davis government's decision to change its mind and overrule the joint consolidated board. He was quoted widely in newspapers throughout Oxford county, and more widespread than that. Now that he is in government, he is in a position to do something about this site. Is he going to take action to protect the citizens of Salford?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is absolutely right. I have been very involved in this question for some time. It is helpful to review the history of this matter. In 1975, Oxford county purchased 60 acres of land near Salford. I understand the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) was then the lawyer handling the deal. In 1977, the county expropriated --

Mr. Treleaven: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: That is an incorrect statement. Withdraw that statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege the member is standing on; it is a point of view.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry. If that is incorrect, I stand corrected, but that is how I was informed.

In 1977, the county expropriated an additional 160 acres, and there was a lawsuit in 1978. In 1982, members will recall, there was a 59-day joint board hearing that decided the Salford site was not acceptable. I was involved at several points along the way. I took a position, and as a matter of record I should point that out again in this House. I said I believed it was a travesty of the system to have the hearing process with expert testimony overturned by politicians without it, politicians who knew very little about the issue.

The issue was overturned in 1983 by an appeal to cabinet. We are looking at this situation very carefully at present from three points of view. There is a considerable amount of legal opinion that a cabinet decision made acting as an appellant body could not be overruled by itself. There is, in fairness, a different opinion now; that a different approach may be filing a consent in court to get around that. There is no clear answer on that question at the moment.

Secondly, about $1.7 million has already been spent by the county for site preparation. Thirdly, I understand there may be some new technical evidence as well. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) is very aware of this issue. He is reviewing it with his officials at present and I hope there will be an announcement very shortly.

Mrs. Grier: We are all aware of the facts the Premier has stated. However, he has now been in office since July and the request to review this matter was made to him very shortly after he took office. Would he not agree that by refusing to come to grips with it and make a decision as to what direction the government is going to take, he is in a position both in the courts and politically of defending a decision on the environment that he categorized as very wrong when he was in the opposition? How much longer can he allow this matter to go on?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The point is quite right. The dilemma the honourable member points out is one that does not just exist in this case but in others as well. There are a number of things the previous government did with which I disagreed and still do, but the reality is we have the responsibility now and in some situations we are legally bound.

I believe it was a mistake at the time. With the information I just revealed to the leader of her party, we would like to have an announcement as quickly as possible. I know the Minister of the Environment is reviewing that. Frankly, I wish it had not happened, so we would not have to deal with it. It was a mistake. The question is how to cut our loss and unwind that situation, if we possibly or legally can. I wish I had an answer today for the honourable member, but I do not.

Mr. Treleaven: Is the Premier aware the Salford Concerned Citizens, through their member, have requested a reply from the Minister of the Environment requesting a new hearing or an opening of the old one, and continue to await a reply?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have real difficulty with that. What is the member's position on this matter? Is he against it or for it? Why did he not make these representations to the former government when it was in the appeal stage in cabinet? Frankly, the member's opinion on this issue is incredible. He should be embarrassed to stand up and take this pious position now.

Mrs. Grier: I accept the Premier's statement that he is considering a solution to the problem, but if so, can he tell us what discussions he has had with the county of Oxford, as the county and government are joint defendants in at least one of the legal actions initiated by the citizens?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Personally, I have not had discussions, but I am very aware that my staff have, as well as the Minister of the Environment and his staff. They are right up to date on this question.

I know the uncertainty this is causing. As I said, $1.7 million has already been spent and there has been some progress. There are a number of options, perhaps under the ambit of laws that exist. Perhaps there can be a new hearing, perhaps not. Perhaps it can be overturned, perhaps not. This is a tough call. I will be back to the member on that as soon as I can.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Rae: I have another question of the Premier. It is about a very specific area in which we can see a real regulatory breakdown in the province. The Premier is aware that 38 of 88 charges under the Nursing Homes Act were thrown out by a judge in weekly court in Toronto, including 14 charges of failure to provide restorative nursing.

He will also be aware the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) has stated in this House that, even in an instance in which the Ministry of Labour on five occasions repeated the same order to correct the ventilation system in a plant in Windsor where there is a worker who is affected by hard-metals disease, a permanent disability affecting the lungs, the minister has said he is incapable of taking the company to court because he says the opinion is that it would not be successful.

These are two instances of regulatory breakdown affecting health and safety. What is the Premier prepared to do now to deal with these situations, so the health and safety of the citizens of Ontario can finally be protected by their government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the member would get a far more complete answer from the Minister of Labour. I will refer the question to him.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Obviously, I cannot speak to the nursing home situation.

As I told the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) last Tuesday and as I say to the leader of the third party today, they are suggesting there is a regulatory failure in the Valenite-Modco case, a weakness in the act and the regulations. They will get no argument from this minister or this government on that. As I suggested to the member for Sudbury East and as I suggest to the leader of the third party today, we are urgently addressing that matter and I expect to have something quite concrete in the not-too-distant future.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I want to go back to what has happened in this province. We have pieces of legislation that are designed so badly to deal specifically with the problems that are there that they could not have been intended to be used, and now we are having to pick up the pieces.

With respect to the Nursing Homes Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, two acts that really have holes in them if they cannot be used in these instances, what is the Premier going to do for those patients who are in the Elm Tree Nursing Home today and who have been there in the past? The home has been charged because things that should have been done, according to the government's own inspectors, have not been done. What is he going to do for those people now that his government has been shown to be powerless in its regulatory authority in the province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can tell the honourable member that we have inherited a number of issues that we are working on very actively. We have had a very full agenda, and the ministers are looking at those acts. A number of pieces of legislation are under full and complete review, and they will be reviewed by this House at the appropriate time.

With respect to specific patients, I cannot bring the member up to date on that; however, I am sure the minister will approach that matter sensitively, and if we can be of assistance by using our offices we will be very happy to do so.

Mr. Gordon: Since the Minister of Labour is not willing to prosecute, is the Premier aware that within the past month Carl MacPetrie in Syracuse, New York, pleaded guilty to lying to a US safety inspector with regard to Valenite-Modco? He was their safety supervisor. In view of the fact the same Mr. MacPetrie was in charge of health and safety matters for the Windsor operation of Valenite-Modco, is the Premier prepared to launch a thorough investigation of this company's approach to occupational health and safety?

Mr. Speaker: The Premier? Is that referred to the Minister of Labour?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am well aware of that. I watched the program Monitor on Monday night as well. To repeat what I suggested in my first answer to the leader of the third party and what I suggested to the member for Sudbury East the other day, we inherited a mess from the people over there and we are going to clean it up.

Mr. Rae: There is an inheritance. Yes, there is an inheritance of laxness and of laws that do not work.

The question the government has to address on an urgent, priority basis, and in some instances on an emergency basis, is when it is going to introduce the changes in the law that will finally give it some teeth instead of having inspectors go around laying charges that will not stand up for five minutes in a court. When is the government going to bring in the changes that will make a difference to people?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Since the Premier would like me to deal with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, I think it is fair to suggest today that the legal opinion identified some three areas in the act, and I will deal with at least two of them next week.

NATURAL GAS PRICING

Mr. Andrewes: My question is for the absent Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio); so I will put it to the Premier. The Minister of Energy's statement last Friday with respect to natural gas pricing indicated the price of natural gas should fall by approximately $1 per 1,000 cubic feet. On Monday, the minister could not tell us the substance of that argument, nor has he indicated the impact of the proposed reduction on the Ontario economy or on jobs in this province.

In the light of its increased taxes on gasoline in this province, what sort of credibility does this government have in making a strong argument on behalf of the industries and the gas consumers in this province before the government of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member will be aware that his government doubled the gasoline tax under the ad valorem; so I say to him, please do not get too pious about this.

Second, I am sure the member is aware -- he may not be; so I will point it out to him in case he is not -- that there is a difference between gasoline and natural gas. That is the subject of these discussions. We have been very worried on this side of the House about things we hear emanating from the discussions of the federal minister with respect to what may or may not happen with natural gas pricing. That directly affects consumers and industry in Ontario.

We have elicited the help of everyone, including the federal members of Parliament. I am sure the member and his colleagues have spoken strongly to their friends in Ottawa, and that the member stood up for Ontario's interests. I have not seen the evidence that he has, but I assume the members opposite are all working on our behalf to make sure Ontarians do not end up in a position where we are paying substantially more for natural gas than the export price that was built in for the United States, and therein is the word. It would affect fundamentally our competitive position as well as the direct out-of-pocket expenses of the consumers of Ontario.

It is a very worrisome issue for us, and the minister has been on top of it for a long time. We have made representations wherever we could, but the member will know we were not part of the summit group, something we disagreed with fundamentally. That being said, it is my understanding the minister is being briefed at this very moment and Miss Carney may have an announcement this afternoon.

Mr. Andrewes: I can assure the Premier I know the subtleties and the difference between gasoline and natural gas. My question was on the sense of credibility.

The Premier, through the minister, sought a seat at the discussion table and he failed. He played a game of confrontation with the federal government and with the producing provinces and he failed. He appears to have alienated all the parties in this discussion and to have separated himself from the government of Canada and the producing provinces to the detriment of the gas consumers in this province. His rhetoric may have some political attractiveness in Ontario, but it will fail in the future. What is he doing and what is he going to do to make sure that Ontario consumers get a fair deal on natural gas?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot believe the member believes what he is saying. Is it his position that we should pay a lot more than US customers just to make everybody happy? Does he realize how foolish he looks standing up and asking a question like that? He did not get a place at the table when he tried. His government tried when he was the minister, and he did not get it. He relied on his friendship with those guys in Ottawa and they abused him royally. That is what happened.

We made our representations through the working group and others. We have been fighting for the interests of the people in this province, not him.

Mr. Swart: Regardless of who may be to blame for this most recent agreement, which fails to protect the gas consumers of Ontario -- and certainly this government has to take a lot of blame for that -- the Premier will be aware that the Canadian ownership special charge was dropped last June 1. Can the Premier explain why that saving of $92 million between June 1 and October 1 was not passed on to Ontario consumers when he had the power to do so?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is no party and no government that is more interested in standing up for the interests of this province than the Liberal Party and this government; there is no question about that. The honourable member is aware of the situation that exists right now where we are in the process of paying $4.12 when it could be going across the border at $1.50. Those are real problems we are facing and have been standing up for, and there has been no stronger defender.

2:50 p.m.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question for my friend "Russell Wrye," the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that throughout the Valenite-Modco problem, the workers were always aware when the Ministry of Labour was going to inspect and management had to clean up the plant? Is the minister also aware there was documentation as early as 1977 which indicated that the threshold limit values were greatly exceeded, and is he further aware Mr. MacPetrie states that the ministry issued orders, not only in 1977 but also in 1974, 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1981, and could have prosecuted at any time because those were repeat orders?

Will the minister table this legal opinion so we know what he is talking about when he says to us that he cannot prosecute?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It might be useful, since I have had some discussions, for me to refer the honourable member's point to my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

[Failure of sound system]

An hon. member: The minister's microphone is not working.

Some hon. members: Stop the clock.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We will have to speak up.

Mr. Rae: I can hear the minister. Can he hear me?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I can only say to the member that the legal opinion from my branch, which was written on March 22, was that a prosecution would not be sustained for a variety of reasons. As I suggested to the leader of the third party, that indicated to us in a very important way weaknesses in the act. The opinion has allowed us to look critically at those aspects of the act that need strengthening, and we are working on that on a very urgent basis.

If the member for Sudbury East would like some comment on tabling the opinion, I will refer the rest of the answer to the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It has not been the usual practice of the Ministry of the Attorney General to table opinions given to other ministries. However, the minister has summarized it correctly by saying it was the opinion of this ministry there were a number of reasons, principal among them weaknesses in the act, that would make a prosecution unsuccessful. The honourable member will have heard the minister say that he hopes to be able to respond to that affirmatively in the Legislature within 10 days. I think that answers the question.

Mr. Martel: If I understand correctly, the Minister of Labour said it was the opinion of his ministry back in March. I want to know who is covering whose derrière. When I see people whose lungs are being destroyed over a 10-year period and we cannot do anything about it, then somebody is covering his backside. I want to know why we cannot prosecute those birds who were given 29 orders by this ministry. It is time the minister housecleaned over there.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think the voters did some housecleaning on May 2, and that will begin to solve the problem. I understand the concerns of my friend; they are concerns which I share. As I address them -- I give this assurance to my friend -- I believe it will become apparent where the weaknesses were.

At this point, rather than carry on with a long answer, I will only remind my friend that in terms of prosecution, it may be fine for him and me to think of the period from 1974 to 1984, but in terms of consideration of a prosecution by officials in my ministry, and later by officials in the Ministry of the Attorney General, we can talk only of a one-year period.

I want to share that with my friend so he will understand we can talk only about a briefer period of time and we cannot consider some of the earlier orders. Some of the concerns and some of the problems we inherited will become clear as we act to correct them, and correct them we will.

Mr. Gordon: Given the fact the minister indicated in July he was going to maintain a very firm stand with companies that violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act, can he tell this House how many prosecutions and/or fines have been levied since July, since he has supposedly been taking a tougher stand?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Obviously, I do not have the numbers at my fingertips. I suggest to the honourable member that two of the problems we will be addressing have to do with the orders and prosecution policy, which we found to be in woefully weak shape when we took over. We will be addressing those problems.

I can assure the member that officials in the occupational health and safety division of my ministry have been told they should not be reticent in laying charges and moving forward with prosecutions as necessary. That comment has been repeated on a number of occasions.

If the member would like some specific information pertaining to the period from, say, July 1 to September 30 or October 31, I will attempt to get that to him as quickly as possible.

EMERGENCY FACILITY

Mr. Timbrell: I have a question to the Minister of Health arising out of a number of phone calls I have received in recent weeks from constituents of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), and in particular from residents of the town of Paris, who are strongly supportive of their community hospitals.

Has the minister had a chance to review the submission of Dr. William E. Noonan and the response of the board of the Willett Hospital? If so, can he assure this House and the fine people of the town of Paris and surrounding communities that the spirit, the letter and the intent of the document that was signed on March 25, 1980, which guaranteed an emergency department and nine holding beds for that hospital, will be honoured and will proceed as negotiated at that time by representatives of the Willett Hospital, the Brantwood Residential Development Centre, St. Joseph's Hospital, the Brantford General Hospital and the Brant County Medical Association, and as approved by the Minister of Health of the day?

Hon. Mr. Elston: In this ministry there are no plans to do anything to close the emergency facility at the Paris hospital. There is a question being raised in the community today which I think was unfortunately raised by my request to meet with the board this evening to speak about some difficulties with that hospital. I am going to that facility this evening, and I will be meeting with the board.

I understand they are generating some kind of public campaign -- at least somebody is -- by having loudspeaking vehicles in the streets asking people to turn out. That is a totally inappropriate reaction to a request from the Minister of Health to visit with that board to discuss some difficulties which Dr. Noonan reported to me, and which have been addressed not only in his report but also in the response from the people who are representatives on the board of that hospital.

There is no intention to do anything with that emergency facility. I have not at any time indicated an intention to do that. It is an impression that has been wrongfully created by people who are not doing their homework, and it is not serving the community very well.

3 p.m.

Mr. Timbrell: It would appear the minister has not read his own report. In his report, Dr. Noonan recommends that "the emergency service at the Willett Hospital be converted to an ambulatory care service," etc.

Do I take it from the minister's response that he is categorically rejecting that recommendation by Dr. Noonan, that he will ensure the agreement of 1980 will continue to be honoured, and finally that he will support all the efforts of the administration and the board of the Willett Hospital to proceed with the emergency care program, along with the other much-needed renovations to that hospital?

Hon. Mr. Elston: They continue to dump questions on top of questions, but let me respond. The reason I wish to meet with the board this evening is to discuss the report and its reply to the report in a reasonable manner.

This honourable member obviously wants to participate in a board discussion with the Minister of Health and I understand he is quite welcome to be at that meeting if he wishes. I said they could invite anybody they wanted. He can be involved in that discussion. I have asked for an opportunity to discuss the report with the board. I think is a very reasonable way to respond and I invite him to be there.

All I can say is I have no intention of closing that emergency service. He should not try to hold a discussion here on behalf of the board unless he is prepared to go down and discuss it with the board this evening. He should come on down with me and we will discuss it with those people. It is the community that has to be well served by this discussion and I am taking the discussion to the community.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: If Bob Barker is finished, my question --

Mr. Timbrell: Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I said there is no intention to do anything with that emergency --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: He said he had no intention of closing the emergency. What could be clearer?

Mr. Timbrell: I want a clear answer.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Do you have a statement to make, sir?

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Scarborough West.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services, coming out of his statement today. I congratulate the minister for recognizing the special needs of poor children and for exceeding Frank Drea's allotment by $20 million. That is a step of some sort, although it is not as large as I would like to see.

I am a little concerned and I would like the minister to explain why he has taken such a paternalistic view of social services by actually earmarking money directly for winter clothing, rather than recognizing that we should be giving adequate money as a base amount to those parents so they can make the parental decision about proper nurturing, proper clothing and proper housing for their children. Why has he earmarked this specifically for winter clothing rather than putting it on a base amount and letting them make the decisions for themselves?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The feedback I have received from the agencies that provide service to our clients and recipients, and from some of the people themselves, was that at this time of the year parents, and single parents in particular, were faced with the choice between buying winter clothes or buying food for their children. Therefore, it was our intention to help them with that decision by providing this extra amount once a year.

Clearly, while we will indicate to the parents that is the purpose for the extra cheque, we are not going into their homes in any way to police how they spend it. If they choose to do something else with it, which in their wisdom and personal choice is preferable, that is their decision. We are trying to help them meet a particular need at a particular point in the year.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Christmas charity, quite frankly, is not what we need. What we need is a recognition that they cannot budget year around because of an inadequate amount of money.

Does the minister recognize that, taking the average rents in Metro Toronto last April according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., even with his increases to the rent subsidy a family with a three-bedroom apartment is still going to have to take $167 out of its food amount to pay the rent? If a family has more kids and is in a four-bedroom apartment, it is going to have to pay as much as $230 out of its food component for rent. They are still way out of line. He may help them budget for one month around Father Christmas time, but he is not helping them with their budgeting year round until he makes up for the discrepancy in the real rent those people have to pay.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The statement I made today clearly indicates we have targeted a number of needs. One of those was rental subsidy. The increases I announced today are considerably and significantly higher than those announced in recent years. I expect the member will recognize that. The increase is 18.4 per cent for families every single month of the year.

Once again, because we were advised that parents are being faced with the choice of either paying the rent or buying food, the attempt was made to give them more money so they could make the choice as to how to use that money. We are not directing it. We are simply providing it to offset an additional cost. That is the whole purpose of it.

There are a series of other types of assistance for handicapped children, for children generally, and for families an additional $50 a month. If they want to use it for food, clothes, rent, or whatever, that decision is theirs. We are providing them with the extra money and they make the decision as to how to spend it. That is reasonable, responsible and sensitive to their needs.

RAINY RIVER SYSTEM

Mr. Pierce: My question is to the Minister of the Environment regarding a news release by his ministry about the chemical tetrachlorodibenzop-dioxin, 2,3,7,8 (TCDD) possibly being found in the fish taken from the Rainy River system located in my riding by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

The US federal agency took five fish from two locations near the border towns of Fort Frances and International Falls. The tests conducted by them indicated that in walleye and white sucker they contained 12 parts per trillion and 19 parts per trillion. In two other fish the results showed 23 parts per trillion, and in a 12-pound pike 85 parts per trillion. The Department of National Health and Welfare has set a maximum allowable level of dioxin in the edible portion of fish at 20 parts per trillion --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Pierce: Will the minister tell the House today whether his ministry carries out the same types of tests as the US Environmental Protection Agency? If so, are the findings the same as those of the EPA? If they are, why have we not known about it?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I thank the member for the question. It gives me an opportunity to discuss a matter which is obviously of concern not only to the member for Rainy River but, I am sure, for all in northwestern Ontario.

We are certainly gratified with the cooperation we have received from Minnesota in this regard. As the member has aptly pointed out, specifically in the results of the testing of five fish the important part is the fillet or part of the fish that is eaten. Our ministry is undertaking much more extensive tests at this time. We have 175 fish, different kinds of fish, taken from the area. We have taken them to our laboratory here in this part of the country. We are analysing them.

The member would probably know from information he has gathered that this kind of analysis takes from four to five weeks to complete. We feel there is some concern, naturally. Even though it is parts per trillion, I am always concerned when I hear the word "dioxin," specifically that kind of dioxin. I assure the member we are doing very extensive testing and at the earliest opportunity, as soon as we get the results of the tests on the fish, I will be happy to reveal them to him and the public.

Mr. Bernier: I am surprised to hear the minister say he is gratified with the support and co-operation he is getting from Minnesota. The information I have is that they knew about this problem six months ago and did not tell his ministry until last Friday.

3:10 p.m.

Will the minister assure this House and the people of northwestern Ontario that testing is being carried out, not only in the Rainy River but also in the system above, the Lac des Mille Lacs watershed, Lake of the Woods and the Winnipeg River system? Will he also tell the House about his ministry's efforts to determine the source of this chemical? The people of northwestern Ontario are very concerned about the drinking water. Will he work closely with the municipalities in that regard?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The suggestions the member has made are all suggestions we are acting upon. I think they are very reasonable.

Let me go to the drinking water first. We have made tests of both the raw water and the drinking water around Fort Frances and Echo. The results have shown no detectable dioxin, and that is of some relief to us.

The member brought up an interesting point. Initially I was of the opinion we had received the results early, but just before I came into question period I had some indication that Environment Canada did not get them as soon as it might have. I would like to investigate that because I think the member would agree with me it is essential that on either side of the border we should be trading evidence back and forth as soon as we get it.

As to the specific sites, we are looking at all possibilities. As the member knows, one of them is the paper mills. Boise Cascade has indicated a very strong willingness to co-operate to the utmost in that regard on this occasion to ensure it is not the site. That is one of the possibilities. Second is some airborne pollutants that might have emanated even from Minnesota as a result of the improper burning of some combustible material. Third, we are even looking at landfill sites and perhaps at any of the runoff from landfill sites.

We are going to investigate every possible source to clear this up as soon as possible, because I know the members from northwestern Ontario are concerned for the health of the people in the area and also for the very important tourism industry they have up there. They can be assured of my full co-operation and of the full activity of this ministry in solving that problem.

Mr. Pouliot: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Given the sincerity of the minister, of which I have no doubt, it must nevertheless be somewhat embarrassing to have to rely on external or foreign sources to tell us about the degree of pollution and the potential hazards in our own rivers in northwestern Ontario. Given the fact that dioxin is one of the most dangerous chemicals known to man, and given the fact that the Rainy River system is quite an extensive system, will the minister give us his assurance that as soon as the findings are available they will be made public to all sources?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think it is exceedingly important that this be done at that time rather than to delay it.

As to the first suggestion from the member, I am concerned that the results came from somewhere else, but from time to time we share them back and forth.

I would like to have a very good look at our ongoing monitoring program, because the member identifies a very important system up there. All three members have brought that up, I think appropriately. It is a very important water system to tourism in Ontario and to the people who reside there.

The House will get a full report without anything hidden. It will be placed before the members and they will be able to ask me what appropriate action we are going to take in that regard. I will be happy to answer at that time.

NURSING HOMES ACT

Mr. D. S. Cooke: My question is to the Minister of Health. It is a follow-up on the Elm Tree Nursing Home decision.

Understanding that as a result of that court decision, owners or licensees will no longer be held responsible in law for such things as the use of restraints, restorative care, maintenance of personal hygiene and therapeutic diets, and that no one is responsible for the regulations that state, "Every nursing home shall be so maintained at all times as to be free from anything that might be hazardous to the health or safety of the residents," what specifically does the minister plan to do to protect the 29,000 nursing home residents in this province, understanding that a court appeal does not solve the problem in that it could be months, and in the meantime residents remain unprotected?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the honourable member for the question, but I think he has to realize as well that we are now fully into a review of a number of the difficulties in the act as set out earlier by the leader of the third party. We have a review that is ongoing of how we can implement more rigorous inspections and better controls with respect to the quality of care in nursing homes. It is not a problem that has escaped our attention during the last several weeks.

As the member suggested, we will be looking at the question of the appeal. We will still be laying charges in the course of that, and looking at putting the current charges that are waiting to be heard on a deferred basis until the question can be finally settled with respect to the old act. We are fully involved in that review and we intend to enforce the current standards to the best of our ability.

Mr. Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have in my hand half a hamburger, which is for the tax-free diet of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). I would like to send it to him. That is all we could find for under a dollar.

PREMIER' S COMMENTS

Mr. Cureatz: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw your attention to our standing order 11, "The Speaker shall not take part in any debate before the House..."

I read that section to you because I was very concerned during question period about the attitude of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in bringing out into debate a matter concerning our Deputy Speaker. I am very concerned. I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in your position you should let it be known to all members of the chamber that it is very difficult when members attack you or the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of the committee of the whole House, and then they expect that within five or 10 minutes you or the Deputy Speaker will sit in your chair and attempt to make fair rulings in these chambers.

I do hope in the future, we, as members of this House, are not being jeopardized by putting our Speaker or Deputy Speaker and Chairman in the embarrassing position of having to respond in these chambers and then having to come back to these chambers and attempt to make fair rulings.

Mr. McClellan: On the same point, Mr. Speaker, the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) has raised a very good and valid point. In the absence of the Premier, I hope you might communicate that to him.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for Durham East and the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) for their comments. I am sure the Premier will read the comments. I do not think it is necessary that I draw it to his attention. I will just say thank you for your point of order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to revert to statements so that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) may make a brief statement to the House about information that was not available to him at the time the statement period began.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?

Agreed to.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

REMOVAL OF WINES

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Mr. Speaker, shortly before noon today, I received information that I wish now to bring to the attention of the House.

On October 8, 1985, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario removed from the shelves of its general retail stores two wines produced by the Italian winemaker Dogliani. These two wines are Barbera D'Asti and Cortese. As well, on October 18, 1985, two brands from the same manufacturer were withdrawn from stock from the Vintages rare wine store with the following brand names: Chardonnay Della Langhe 1982 and Barolo 1978 Kiola. All of these wines have now been removed for the reason that laboratory tests indicate the presence of diethylene glycol.

It was the view of officials at the LOBO laboratory that in order to maintain our consistency in distributing only safe and high-quality products, these brands should be removed.

3:20 p.m.

I have today instructed the chairman of the LCBO that the board must inform the public immediately upon the removal of any product from its shelves for health or safety reasons. Apparently, this has not been the policy in the past, but I can assure the members this will be the practice of the board in the future.

I should also inform the House that as a result of news stories today regarding Austrian wines, it is my information that some Austrian wines produced in Burgenland province may include sodium azide. According to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario laboratory, which is checking into this situation, it is our information that none of the wines listed by the LCBO comes from that province of Austria.

I should add that the Austrian trade commissioner has informed us this problem relates only to small suppliers and the LCBO officials advise me we only purchase products from the larger suppliers. Therefore, it does not appear to create a problem. I will keep the members informed as further information becomes available to me.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: On June 17, I placed approximately six questions on the order paper and on July 22, 1985, I received an interim reply suggesting that the information would be available by October 15. To this date, October 31, I still do not have answers to those questions.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the minister will take note of that.

PETITION

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Pierce: I wish to table a petition concerning full funding for separate schools, which concludes:

"We, the undersigned, of Our Lady of the Good Counsel parish, Rainy River, Ontario, urge you to support the proposed legislation."

The petition is signed by 25 people from the community of Rainy River.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr1, An Act to revive Famee Furlane of Hamilton;

Bill Pr2, An Act respecting the Historic Vehicle Society of Ontario;

Bill Pr13, An Act to revive The Central Pipeline Company, Limited;

Bill Pr14, An Act to revive Agricultural Anhydrous Ammonia Co. Limited;

Bill Pr16, An Act respecting the Canadian National Exhibition Association;

Bill Pr20, An Act respecting The Peterborough Civic Hospital;

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting Charity House (Windsor).

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr21, An Act respecting Charity House (Windsor).

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COMMERCIAL VENTURES IN RURAL AREAS

Mr. Reycraft moved, seconded by Mr. G. I. Miller, resolution 12: That in the opinion of this House, in witnessing the financial crisis currently being experienced by family farm operators in our rural agricultural regions, the government of Ontario should recognize the need to encourage various long-term strategies such as the development of new commercial and industrial ventures in rural areas as alternatives and supplements to traditional farm family incomes; such initiatives will help to maintain and preserve the social fabric of our rural communities.

Mr. Reycraft: In the county of Middlesex, there is a very pretty but small township by the name of Delaware. In Delaware township there is a very highly respected farmer named Gerry Long, who owns and runs Wood Lynn Farms. Gerry is a dedicated, hardworking farmer. He is involved in pork, beef, apples and eggs as well as in cash crop production. But Gerry Long knows, as all too many of his farming neighbours know from first-hand experience, that there is an ill wind blowing down the back roads of this agricultural heartland in southern Ontario, and he knows that this wind is not about to let up.

A few weeks ago in the London Free Press Gerry Long was quoted as saying: "Farm folk are bred at the kitchen table to be a farmer. I never did that to my kids, and thank God I didn't. This situation tears the guts out of people morally, physically and mentally."

That is why I am bringing forth this resolution. Too many of our farmers feel as if their guts are being torn out of them. Farmers are wondering if their new government at Queen's Park will provide them with the kind of long-term help they have earned and deserve, the kind of help they did not receive from the previous government.

I could stand here and bore everyone with statistics and mile-long lists of figures that prove just how bad the financial stranglehold is on the farmers, but everyone here is familiar with these dismal numbers. We have read them in the papers, we have heard them from our constituents and we have discussed them in this House. They tell us that the number of farms in Ontario that sell more than $25,000 worth of agricultural products in a year has decreased by about 13 per cent in the last 10 years. They tell us that Ontario has lost more than 12,000 farms during the last 15 years. There is no need to tell us more of what we already know.

But there is an issue that I think deserves closer scrutiny, for it is an issue that strikes at the very heart of our rural communities. We must pay more attention to the devastating social consequences of the current financial crisis. I am deeply concerned about the disruptive effects on the way of life in the hundreds of communities and small towns in rural Ontario, as we continue to see farmers going bankrupt, family farms being sold and those farm families who have lost their source of income moving elsewhere.

Agriculture is the heart of Ontario's economy. We know it accounts for about 20 per cent of Ontario's jobs, and it is the family farm that has kept that heart beating. But the pulse is weakening and that heart is failing.

The family farm has always been a stabilizing force and a significant contributor to the quality of life in our great province. With the reduction in the number of family farms, the social fabric of our rural communities is being torn asunder. When the victims of this crisis leave their farms and their communities, who will go in their stead to the local churches, the service clubs, the municipal councils, the community organizations and the schools? What will happen to the local businesses when those farmers are no longer there to be customers?

These are questions that must be asked. Concerns such as these have prompted me to draft this resolution. We must do something. We certainly know better than to think Ottawa will do something for us. They will still be dancing their shuffle around this issue when the damage is done and is way beyond repair.

I am very encouraged by the resolve and the vigour with which our new government is searching for ways to solve farming's financial problems. Not three months ago, just a month after taking office on August 8, my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) announced the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program.

OFFIRR, as the members of this House well know, is a $50-million, short-term program to assist up to 10,000 financially distressed Ontario farmers. It will subsidize interest rates in excess of eight per cent on up to $200,000 of farm debt. The response from the rural community to the OFFIRR program has been very favourable. Many have told me of its valuable and timely effect on their operations. It is aiding those Ontario farmers who need it most.

3:30 p.m.

Supplementary to that, my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) introduced in his budget last week a $6-million transition fund to be established to assist those farmers who have no other option but to leave the agricultural industry. He also announced that an additional 10,000 subsidized child care spaces were to be provided in Ontario with priority given to child care in rural and underserviced areas.

Another program very close to being implemented, as we heard from the Minister of Agriculture and Food last week, is the long-awaited tripartite stabilization program, which will provide price stabilization to red meat producers in Ontario. This program represents a form of income insurance. It will smooth out the price cycles that can drive farmers into bankruptcy.

The red meat producers of Ontario have waited a long time for this program. It will provide them with some income equilibrium, which in turn will benefit the rural communities in which they live. Ontario and the three prairie provinces strongly support this initiative. Ontario is so confident that the tripartite agreement will be signed that in his budget, the Treasurer has included some $20 million towards Ontario's contribution to the program.

Also in conjunction with recently announced budget initiatives, the Futures program of training and employment for youth was announced on October 22 by the Minister of Skills Development and Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara). This program, designed to provide on-the-job training plus schooling for hard-to-employ young people, can and should be emphasized to our rural youth, thus allowing them to train and work within the rural environment where they grew up and where they wish to establish their future.

Not only is the Liberal government responding to the immediate concerns of the farm community, it is in the process of developing long-term financial strategies for our rural heartland. We have put together a top-flight task force consisting of specialists from the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, Management Board of Cabinet and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

This task force is examining all aspects of farm finance, including the role of private lending institutions and federal agencies. It is assessing the ability of the agricultural industry to adjust to a continually changing economic environment. In keeping with our commitment to open government, the task force is communicating directly with farm organizations and interested individuals seeking their proposals and suggestions.

The task force will evaluate these and prepare its recommendations by February of next year as part of the process of developing Ontario's 1986 budget. Although stabilization initiatives are positive and necessary steps, they are only a beginning to the solution. I am confident our task force will succeed in developing dynamic long-term strategies.

We know the problems that challenge our farmers are not just Ontario problems and are not just Canadian problems. They are challenges that are international in scope. The international market is in a state of disarray. As evidence of that, one need look no further than the controversy raging in the agricultural industry within the European Community and also to the knee-jerk reactions of the American protectionists.

The problems of the EC and the United States situation are beyond the range of the resolution before us. I would like to focus on the problems our rural areas are experiencing. The disappearance of Ontario family farms is producing alarming social spinoffs. Families are moving away for a chance at a better life somewhere else. Youth, with no opportunities for employment in the profession of their parents, are leaving for the cities. Enrolment in our rural schools is declining, which means there are even fewer youth to carry on the family farm tradition. The moral and social fibre of our rural communities is in jeopardy.

Enough of speaking in general terms. I would like to paint some human faces on these abstractions. I would like to take just a few minutes to tell the members a story of a young farming couple in the Glencoe area near my home. I know both of these young people, who were married in 1978 and now have two children. I have watched these two young people as they progressed through the secondary school in Glencoe where I taught. Both of them took a very active role in the school and in our community in general. The young woman while a student frequently baby-sat my eldest son.

Both of them went on to obtain a good education. The young man graduated from the University of Guelph with a bachelor's degree in agricultural science and the young lady graduated as a registered nurse. The families of these two young people are highly respected in the agricultural community of Middlesex. After their marriage in 1978, they purchased a farm from the young man's father at a very reasonable price and started their own operation in cash crop and pork production. The farm, by the way, has been in that family since 1832.

In 1978, the decline in the price of pork was already evident, something most of us thought at the time was only temporary. It had, after all, followed a cyclical pattern for many years. The declining commodity prices and the high interest rates of the early 1980s prevented the couple from making a profit in any given year, but with the assistance of a good chartered accountant and the interest rate subsidies from the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program the two young people approached their farming venture in a very responsible way.

They did not go out and purchase a lot of expensive machinery. They did not paint their barn or their buildings. They have not even taken a vacation since they started in 1978. Yet, despite their cautious approach, despite their solid education, despite their farming background and despite their very careful planning, they found themselves at the end of last year with a debt load they simply could not manage.

After seeking expert financial advice they decided the most appropriate thing to do was to liquidate their farm and their other assets, which they did. They have also been forced to declare personal bankruptcy. What will this young couple do now to provide for themselves and their two young children? There are not many employment opportunities in the Glencoe area; so they may very well have to consider moving somewhere else. If they do that, our community loses in a great many ways.

The dilemma confronting this young couple is not unique. It is all too common in virtually every rural area across this province. If this young couple had been able to supplement their income from a source off their farm, they might have been able to keep their operation alive. Failing that, if one or both of them could now find employment in the local area, they could start their life over without having to leave the community.

They could continue to make a very valuable, personal contribution to their church, which has always been an important part of their lives, and to their local service clubs, rural organizations and so on. This young couple could continue to play an important role in extending the heritage of rural Ontario.

That is what this resolution is all about. It addresses itself to the development of new commercial and industrial ventures in rural areas. I suggest there are a number of initiatives that might be undertaken to accomplish that objective.

One such initiative under consideration is a job creation plan that would reimburse small business employers by providing tax credits for first-year employee wages in small industrial and commercial developments. A modification of this proposal could target this initiative to the small urban municipalities in hard-hit rural areas. I am sure that would have a very positive effect.

An alternative incentive would be a policy that offered to share, within reasonable limitations, the cost of capital construction for new commercial and industrial facilities in targeted areas.

3:40 p.m.

Both alternatives have been used in other times and jurisdictions with very effective results. Of course, loans with relatively attractive terms to assist and encourage industrial development are already available through the Ontario Development Corp. This program, or some modification thereof, used in conjunction with one or both of the previously mentioned options, would have some very dramatic results, which would go a long way towards helping rural Ontario retain its social fabric and cultural heritage.

In no way should any attempt to stimulate industrial and commercial development in rural Ontario jeopardize our valuable food land resources. Any measure that had such an effect could not be viewed as beneficial in the long term.

There is absolutely no reason why such an effect should occur. Across the rural counties and regions of this province, there are literally hundreds of small urban centres that would welcome such development. In those centres, there is a very substantial land base that is already designated for urban development and where new industrial and commercial establishments could locate without reducing our inventory of prime agricultural land.

I believe these options are practical examples of ways to address the crisis that confronts us. I want to respectfully solicit the support of the members of this Legislature for this resolution, and I will reserve the few minutes I have left to conclude the debate.

Mr. McLean: I am pleased to join in this debate, and I support the ballot item of the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft).

Many of the farm families in my riding of Simcoe East are also suffering financial hardship. We know farm prices at the gate are considerably lower than when the same product arrives at the supermarket checkout. Somewhere along the line, profits are being made. I wholeheartedly endorse the free enterprise, profit system, but I want to see the farmers -- the producers -- get some of that profit. For this to happen, we need some action from the provincial government.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) should also show an initiative to encourage the growth of manufacturing and industrial investment in rural areas. Of course, this would apply to areas with a population of less than 50,000.

The reason I have indicated that population figure is that last year I had a ballot item -- it was before the House but was not debated -- which was much along the same lines, although it was directed more towards industrial promotion through which municipalities would have incentives for industry to locate in smaller areas across the province. It was much the same as the honourable member has indicated in his resolution; that is, to try to decentralize and get them in rural areas.

There are areas in the riding of Simcoe East where this would fit in. There is a real need for this type of activity. The days of 100-acre farms operated by one man and his family appear to be long gone, but through sheer tenacity, industry and a very powerful desire to remain in the country, people still want to raise their families there. These are resourceful people who have education and skills and who want to contribute to society but have been outrun in the agricultural industry by technology. In this case, technology has not resulted in fewer jobs but in better productivity. As a result, the small farm operation is not feasible. The financial burden is such that not every small farmer can afford to expand his land holdings and thereby use modern technology to its fullest.

I remind members that I am not advocating paving over farm land. We are already losing too much good agricultural land to expanding housing developments in the suburban areas. We do, however, have areas that are suitable for little else except environmentally acceptable industry and commerce. These are selected sites that could be built on wasteland or former landfill sites. They might also be constructed in connection with existing sites.

This type of construction could take place and would fully utilize the land we have. Much of it is owned by municipalities and would provide a useful tax base, employment opportunities and an opportunity to enjoy country living and employment, the best of both worlds. It would have the added benefit of cutting down on overcrowding in major commercial centres such as Toronto, and it would lead to fuel conservation.

We have entrepreneurs in my riding of Simcoe East, and I feel we should do whatever we can to present them with opportunities. This is one positive method of diversifying the local economy. A reduction in transportation costs would provide lower food costs for the outlying areas. We have entrepreneurs working at various enterprises in Simcoe East. Many of them are working only because they have battled city hall to prove they can stay and accommodate zoning bylaws under the "existing use" clause.

I would like to see the provincial government answer the urgent cry for development of self-reliant enterprise. I understand the government is considering a program similar to the previous Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, which was a tremendous program for small rural municipalities.

Why is the government disbanding a program that is working and replacing it with something similar that may cloud and confuse the issue? In Simcoe East, people were just getting to know where to apply under the BILD program. Many of them came to me and asked for information. Now they will be obliged to apply under a different program. They know they can depend on their member of the Legislature for Simcoe East; they always could and they always will.

Mr. Breaugh: Whoever that is.

Mr. McLean: I knew I would get a response from the member for Oshawa.

An old adage comes into play here: "If it is working, don't fix it; leave it alone." Whatever program the government comes up with in this regard, let us make certain it is circulated widely and publicly. Let us make certain those who have an application in progress are informed there is a change and that a new program will be in place.

As the member for Simcoe East, I am willing to notify the applicants and help them to locate in the rural area. We have a positive approach in our municipality under the federal local employment assistance and development program. I do not want to see a duplication of service. There is room for additional programs. When the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology gives such programs its consideration, it can be assured of full co-operation from this member and from the people of my riding.

I urge the government today to give this matter urgent consideration. We do have a potential crisis and I would like to see it avoided. It is a problem today, and problems left to fester tend to become crises. I feel, as does the member for Middlesex, that the fabric of our rural communities must be preserved.

3:50 p.m.

During the budget speech, there was one thing that stuck in my mind about the gasoline tax. Many farmers in this province have commercial vehicles they use for hauling grain and feed, going to get parts and for everyday use in their farming operations. Yet they pay tax on the gasoline they use for that purpose.

I hope the government will consider taking the tax off commercial vehicles owned by farmers regardless of whether they have licences. I certainly agree they should pay the same as anybody else for the vehicles they own, but when I look at my own farm operation, my son is on the road every day with the larger truck or the smaller truck, all to do with his farming operation. When one considers that over the year a large tax is being paid related directly to the operation of his farm, I think the government should take a second look at that and perhaps bring in an amendment to the legislation to exempt these farmers from the tax.

I am thankful for the opportunity to support this resolution. I wish we had more farmers in the House than we have, but I think we have had a very good proportion in the past eight or 10 years compared to what used to be. I believe this resolution is worthy of everyone's support.

Mr. Ramsay: It is an honour and a privilege to stand here today and speak to this motion. I support this motion. It is something I feel very deeply about as I am a farmer. I represent farmers in the riding where I live. I feel the hurt that is going on in the rural community myself, and I feel it for others whom I represent throughout this province as agricultural critic for the New Democratic Party in this Legislature.

Today, I want to take a different tack from that taken by the previous speakers. The fullness of the meaning of this motion struck me when I read it, and I felt I wanted to bring to the attention of the House the importance of agricultural activity to our civilization. It is the story of our civilization. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is civilization itself.

Until we developed the ability to farm, we as human beings were basically nomadic people. To sustain ourselves, we had to hunt and forage. When we did farm, it was the start of the world as we know it today. Our world was built by men and women who were resourceful and independent, driven by a desire to develop their farms and to prosper by the work of their hands. That is a very important ethic we are in danger of losing today.

The family shared in this work of the farm, in its joys and sorrows and in its triumphs and disasters. The unity of family life and a sense of common purpose are difficult to maintain in urban Ontario today. Rural Ontario represents the last bastion of those family values. We must do everything we can to protect that.

This way of life was the foundation of our province and was the key to our prosperity in the past. However, as I travel through the countryside and the back roads of this province, I see evidence of a decline of this once great civilization and proud heritage. There are more and more abandoned farms and barns throughout our countryside than one would dare admit.

As one travels through the country, the red brick houses we see in eastern Ontario, the yellow brick houses of central and southwestern Ontario and the clapboard homes of the first farmers who went up to the north appear as ghosts through the early morning haze. They are symbols of the malaise that has struck our countryside and our province as a whole. We are seeing the striking down of a great agricultural tradition in our province.

How did we get into this mess? How are we here today? Why are we having to address this problem? The mistake we made was in the promotion of efficiency at the expense of community values. At the risk of being accused of being a Luddite, let me say our love affair with technology is partly to blame for our dilemma.

Agriculture is undergoing a revolution. It has evolved from a feudal state to an industrial type of agriculture to the cybernated food production of today, with the use of computers, remote control cultivators, television monitors, sensors and data banks. All these now can be automatically run and used to run -- I would like the members to notice I use the word "run" and not "farm." That is what we are losing today. We are running thousands of acres of finable soil as farms. If this pace continues, we will be left a few years down the road with telefarm operators who will be able to feed millions of people. Where is the family farm going to go?

If we remove human values from the production end, how are we going to preserve human values at the consumption end? We should be striving for a sustainable, rather than a merely profitable, agricultural system. We should replace the short-term goals of productivity and competitiveness with such values as fair economic return for farmers, the resurgence of the family farm, soil conservation and the strengthening of our rural communities. We should also make sure we have a secure food supply for the future of this province and our country.

We must start to rationalize our food distribution system. We must serve local markets; we can start with that. I find it quite incredible to see the food distribution system in relation to the north. We send truck after truck of beef and pork on the hoof to the stockyards in Toronto. It goes to the many processing plants, whether in Toronto or Kitchener. Because the chain-store operations have control of the food distribution system today, that food is carted right back up Highway 11 again. We could be doing our own processing and distribution for our local area, because in the north we provide much of the food we need. We are very self-sufficient in meat and milk production. We have to look at some of these overall rationalizations of how we distribute and grow food. I think we have been going down the wrong track.

We have to accelerate our import replacement program. We talk much about free trade and balance of payments when we talk about trade, but there is one area, the rural life of Ontario, where we could accomplish something for the economy by working at trying to replace much of the food we import.

Those would be some of the first steps towards a sustainable agriculture.

To develop an agricultural policy for the future, I wish we could send the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food and the assistant deputy ministers into the fields and pastures of our land and have them question the farmers, the farm workers and our rural people so they would understand the quality of rural life. If we could only give them the time to take up and farm a piece of land themselves, they could learn from experience by being in direct contact with the soil.

The care and nurturing of our rural community is a most worthy responsibility. To cherish what remains of it and to foster its renewal is our only legitimate hope.

4 p.m.

Mr. Morin: I wish to speak in support of this resolution, not only because my own riding of Carleton East has a large rural component but also because I too come from a rural background and have many friends in the agricultural community.

I use the word "community" on purpose. If ever there has been a segment of our society that has had a real and strong sense of community, it is the rural population. Although one's closest neighbour in the countryside may be a kilometre or more down the road, he or she is often closer in spirit than the person who lives in the next apartment in a metropolitan high-rise.

Farmers share a long and noble tradition, second only to the explorers and fur traders, in opening up this country. It was the farmers who stayed and settled the land while others moved on. Not only did they provide a stable economic base for the establishment of permanent settlements, but their labours also helped to feed the nonfarming residents who followed them. In effect, the development of the rural communities formed the building blocks for Ontario as we know it today. They gave us the work ethic and moral values while stocking our larders.

The nature of Ontario society has changed since those early days. The emphasis has shifted from the land to urban industrial and commercial pursuits. Since 1951 the relative size of Ontario's rural population has decreased from more than one quarter to less than one fifth of the provincial total. At the same time, however, farmers have faithfully continued to discharge their responsibility as full providers despite the mounting pressures on them.

Ontario's degree of agricultural self-sufficiency has declined over time. By 1950 the province had become a net importer of agricultural products. In the 1980s, agricultural self-sufficiency has dropped to between 75 and 80 per cent. This gives rise to a concern that, if this trend continues, agricultural production in Ontario may not keep up with population growth in the long term.

The distinct and unique culture of rural Ontario is at risk today. The causes of this state of affairs are many: years of government neglect, a drop in net farm income as a result of rising production costs, high interest rates and downward pressure on consumer prices. Furthermore, let us not forget the increasing attraction of stable, well-paying jobs in the city.

The economic problems have had a negative impact on rural communities as a whole. As their future on the farm appears bleaker, farmers and their children are abandoning the rural lifestyle. Nuclear family structures which were once the backbone of agricultural production are breaking up. Like the rest of the country, the rural population is getting older, but with the exodus of the youth to the cities, the problem is aggravated in the smaller rural communities which find themselves with a declining base from which to provide support to their older residents.

There is dropping enrolment in elementary schools and fewer children remain in the community to carry on the family farm. Thus, farm ownership more frequently passes out of family hands, sometimes becoming part of a larger corporate operation and thereby producing a rather faceless society where there once was a closely knit community.

It may well be that fewer, larger farms are more efficient. It may well be that agricultural self-sufficiency is an unrealistic objective. It may well be that rural youth would be attracted to the bright lights of the city in any event. The point is that we are not talking about economics alone. We are talking about a way of life, about the preservation of communities and their values.

The social aspects are equally important, if not more important, to those young people who want to stay on the farm to carry on the family tradition. This resolution proposes to preserve the rural communities by providing them with economic stability. The idea is to use incentives to encourage the development of new commercial and industrial ventures related to current activities, and established on nonagricultural land in certain rural communities.

In this way, the residents would be offered an alternative they do not often have now, to stay in their own community and still be able to earn a stable and fair income. Whether the individual will choose to do this on a full-time basis or as a part-time supplement to farm income would be up to him or her, but at least there would be a choice which currently does not exist in many farming communities.

We owe much to the farmers of this province. This is one way in which we can recognize their essential place in our heritage and in our present social fabric and in a small way repay that debt. In so doing, we will preserve our own roots rather than let them wither through neglect and blow away in the winds of change.

Cette assemblée a une obligation morale d'aider nos cultivateurs à demeurer sur leurs fermes. Nous devons nous assurer que toutes les mesures possibles seront considérées afin de corriger ce problème social. Je crois de tout coeur que la résolution proposée par le député de Middlesex (M. Reycraft) nous offre l'opportunité d'aider cette partie de la population dont le rôle est essentiel au bien-être de toute la société.

It is for those reasons that I support the resolution of my colleague.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I completely support the principle of the resolution by the member for Middlesex and I intend to vote in favour of it. I intend to introduce a similar resolution -- as a matter of fact, I introduced it today -- which outlines some of the concerns I have for the rural parts of our province.

I would like to take the resolution to its full extent. The member mentioned in the resolution that he wished to see supplements to traditional farm family incomes as well as to maintain and preserve the social fabric of our rural communities. Having operated a business in a small town for many years and having worked with farmers, I know from experience that we in rural Ontario are all in the same boat. Each of us is dependent on the other. When we talk about rural Ontario, I hope we also talk about the hamlets, the towns and the villages, because they, too, prosper or suffer as the farming community prospers or suffers. So we are talking about the total rural aspect.

Having said that, I would like to think when we talk about the social fabric of the villages, the hamlets and the farming community we are talking about the churches, the arenas, the stores, the professional people -- every aspect of family life that joins us together.

We can relate back to the turn of the century, when the small towns were developed. At that time they served even more as service centres for the communities. They served the farming communities and were built for that reason. The mills, factories and industries were established and the stores, professional people, doctors and lawyers were there to serve the customers, many of them farmers. The schools, churches, libraries, hospitals and arenas were all established on the basis of the population of the communities and to provide services to farm families.

So the social fabric was woven into the communities in those days at the turn of the century, and for 20 or 30 years after that the villages and towns seemed to grow. Then they started to stabilize, and that is pretty well where they are today unless they have had some industrial growth.

With the agricultural sector starting to feel the financial pinch, the farms have to get larger. There are fewer farm families, and now we are faced with declining enrolment in our schools. Our communities are having difficulty keeping their various activities operating, and merchants are forced to close their business establishments, so the pressure is compounded. It is not only on the farming community, the farmers per se, but also on all the service industries that serve the farmers.

4:10 p.m.

Therefore, we have a double reason for supporting a resolution such as this. It is not only to enhance family incomes but, indeed, to preserve the social fabric of the entire rural area of this province.

The member for Middlesex has suggested that the government of Ontario should recognize the need to encourage various long-term strategies to enhance the financial viability of our farmers and rural communities. This is commendable, but now we have to decide what we can do. I would like to add a few of my suggestions to those that have been expressed by the other members.

1. We could have industrial expansion into rural Ontario, and not on good agricultural land. There is a lot of land that would not have to be taken out of production.

2. We could have additional promotion and expansion of the farm vacation program.

3. Homes for the aged, nursing homes and certain types of hospitals and health care facilities could be established in rural Ontario.

4. We could have the decentralization of government offices into rural Ontario.

I would like to deal with each of these as time permits, and I will go in reverse order.

There is no reason some of the departments of the ministries could not function just as well out of locations in rural Ontario. There is no reason they have to be in downtown Toronto or in some of the larger communities. Many of them could be in our smaller communities and provide employment for small-town and rural people.

With regard to health care facilities, I will use an example in my own riding. There is a home for the aged, Dufferin Oaks, that employs 160 people. Many of the people live on and operate their own farms, and yet it gives them employment. It is a beautiful home. Most people would prefer to live in the country if they had a choice. I am sure most of the members here would agree with that. They have clean air; fresh, clear water; no pollution; no noise and lovely views. It is close to heaven.

Next is the farm vacation program, and this is one I have been promoting for 10 years. At the present time we have a pamphlet that lists 85 farm homes involved in the program. Prince Edward Island, a province that is a fraction of the size of ours, has more homes involved. In England they have booklets listing thousands of farm vacation homes. We have not even scratched the surface of a program that could substantially assist in providing extra revenue for the rural areas of this province.

I spoke to one of the home operators today. She told me that six is the maximum number of people they can handle, but it is an extremely important part of their operation because it helps them with the financial problems they are encountering.

I made a proposal many years ago to the then Minister of Correctional Services to see if prefabricated small cottages could be built and leased to farmers. The farmers who were interested in staying in the business could then do so; the others could simply ask to have the cottages removed and they would be back in farming. When times are tough in agriculture, it would be a benefit to them; when times improve, they could get back to full-time farming operations. Many would like to stay there.

Tourism is one of the largest industries we have in this country and in this province, and there is no reason we could not take advantage of the farm vacation program to enhance the viability of our farming community.

The present Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) is one of the most active supporters of this program. The one difficulty we have with the government is that the program is implemented under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I believe the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) should definitely be involved in the program, but I feel that the thrust should come from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. I would appreciate it if the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft) would talk to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation to see if he could become more active in this program.

I mentioned that it is one of my pet projects. I intend to pursue it. I feel, with only 85 homes in this province participating, that we could have 10 times that number.

Since I have only a minute, I can touch on one last point. It is with regard to industrial expansion into rural Ontario and, as I mentioned, not into good farm land. If the expansion is in the small towns adjacent to the farming community, many of the farmers, when severely pressed, could work part-time or even full-time in the industry if they did not have to lose a lot of time travelling back and forth to work. This would help to supplement their income; and when times changed, they could then get back into the full-time operation. They would have a choice; they would not have to leave the farm.

If there was that employment opportunity they could live on the farm and still operate it, plus make extra money. This would especially help the younger farmers just getting started and the extremely large farm families. With many young men on the farms there is no way they could all stay on the farm, but they could live on the farm and work in industries and contribute to the financial benefits of the farm family.

Mr. Hayes: The resolution states there is a financial crisis currently being experienced by family farm operations. This is very true. At first glance, one would consider the resolution more of a motherhood resolution. However, I am not convinced the development of commercial or industrial business is really the answer for preserving the family farm.

We hear all kinds of talk about preserving the family farm. Even the Minister of Agriculture and Food points out in his estimates presentation that he has accepted as some of his options, "To preserve the agricultural land base and to improve its productive potential; to support rural organizations, enhance the quality of rural life and develop future leaders; to enhance the knowledge and skills of people working in agriculture, and encourage sound business management and application of modern technology; and to reduce the risk factors and income fluctuations that are inherent in agricultural production."

In my riding and throughout Ontario, many family farms have disappeared. There are three main reasons this has happened: (1) the high interest rates farmers have been faced with over the past few years; (2) the farmer has not received a fair price for his or her labour and commodities; and (3) the federal Liberals in the past, and also the past provincial Tories, have turned a blind eye to the needs of the people who earn -- and I point out earn -- their living from agriculture.

In reality, what has happened is a drop in real net farm income to the levels of 15 years ago. There is a staggering increase in input costs, particularly for machinery, pesticides, fertilizers and debt servicing, and a growing necessity to supplement farm income with off-farm employment. Too many farmers now have to rely on off-farm jobs to supplement their farms just to hold on to what they have.

4:20 p.m.

If the government is really serious about preserving the family farm, it should support the farmers by helping them get a fair share of the consumer food dollar by stopping the monopoly pricing practices of the giant corporations with their ever-greater control of the processing, distribution and retail industries.

I believe the provincial government has a responsibility to help ensure the continued viability of the family farm. That responsibility must include the assurance that farmers receive a fair share of the consumer dollar and a just return on their labour. It must include a provision of long-term, low-interest agricultural credit. It must include strong policies for the protection of Ontario's farm land resources. That responsibility must include the financial resources to back up the promises and fancy rhetoric. In other words, the provincial budget for agriculture must be substantially increased.

I feel that if this resolution is passed, what we are saying is that the demise of family agriculture in Ontario is a fact of life. I do not believe it has to be a fact of life. I believe the government of Ontario should encourage long-term strategies for new commercial and industrial ventures in the rural communities, perhaps as secondary industries, but not to replace family farms.

In my riding, one canning factory has now closed and gone out of business, and I understand another is not far behind. One reason is the influx of imports. Let us work together towards protecting the farm industries that exist now. If farmers received a fair price for their labours and commodities, it would help the whole economy and preserve the family farm.

I am pleased to see that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has increased the Agriculture and Food budget. What I really question is, why increase the budget for agriculture and at the same time allow the decrease of family farms to continue? Instead of alternatives, what we need is effective policies and programs aimed at strengthening Ontario's agriculture and food sector.

Mr. G. I. Miller: It is a great privilege to rise today and participate in the debate on private member's motion 12, brought in by the member for Middlesex. I believe it is the first resolution or private member's bill that has been brought in under the new government of Ontario. I think it points out the importance of the rural community and rural Ontario to the overall economy of our great province of Ontario and of Canada.

I would like to point out, too, Mr. Acting Speaker, that Del O'Brien who has been a great spokesman for agriculture for many years -- perhaps you will recognize that name because he comes from your part of Ontario -- has always indicated that agriculture is the engine that makes the economy work, and that when agriculture gets into trouble we all feel it. I really believe that. Many speakers on all sides of the House have indicated today that they support the resolution and that, in their view, they have some remedies they feel might be useful.

With a minority government, I believe that role can move forward. As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I can say we will be listening for alternatives that can strengthen our rural community and the agriculture industry in general.

It has been a concern of mine since I was elected in 1975. As a former farmer who made his total life on a mixed farm, I understand the hard work and dedication it takes to be successful at farming and the sacrifices one has to make. As the members speak here today, I become confident that maybe now we can bring in some new plans, a new direction, which will help keep those family farms alive.

In my opinion, there is no better place to raise a family and give children the basic training that prepares them for any walk of life. A young person from a farm may find working in many other jobs a treat and considerably easier because of the regular hours of work and pension plans which give protection as one grows older. I would like to see that come about in the agricultural industry. There has been a trend towards larger farms, bigger units. It is not going to be easy to turn it around. We can use more young people in that area of our economy. It takes youth and strength to till those fields and put in the long hours necessary at planting and harvest times. One has to understand the industry, but it can be so rewarding.

I do not want to go too far into the past, but I would make the point that on October 22, 1981, I introduced a private member's bill which would have given assistance to the farming community. There had been a task force which was brought together by the government of the day to go around Ontario and investigate the needs of farmers and the reasons financial problems were devastating the agricultural industry. The reports came back, and I do not believe those recommendations have been put in place yet.

In 1984, we brought in a resolution to bring the interest rate down to eight per cent. Finally, with the change of the government on June 26, we were able to bring that into effect. On a one-year basis --

Mr. Stevenson: It was at the cost of many other existing programs in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food that this government brought that into existence.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I want to complete this and indicate --

Mr. Stevenson: This government cannot expect to do it with so many millions in promises and another $20 million in new money to come.

Mr. G. I. Miller: For the member, the former minister, I would like to indicate we are putting in $50 million under the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, which will reduce the interest on long-term farm debts.

Mr. Stevenson: Where will the money come from?

Mr. G. I. Miller: From exactly the same place that one gets it for any other provincial program. The Treasurer provides it.

There will be $50 million put into the program to bring the interest rate down to eight per cent for a maximum of seven percentage points. As we have indicated, that should help up to 10,000 farmers. That is a significant improvement over the programs of the former government, which, under the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program, assisted roughly 1,200 people. Many people in Ontario never even bothered to make an application for that, it was so complicated.

Mr. Stevenson: Look at your own.

Mr. G. I. Miller: The member will have an opportunity to speak, if he wants to refute it. I have five minutes yet.

4:30 p.m.

We have brought up to $50 million into this program on a short-term basis. The Minister of Agriculture and Food has also brought in the tripartite system and moved ahead with that so it will give some stabilization to the red meat sector. We are also looking at programs to give a better return on corn, soybeans and the cash crop areas. The stabilization program could well trigger getting better returns for those products.

Many members, if they are farmers, know what the price of corn is today. It is $2.60 wet. It has to be dried, which costs up to 30 cents a bushel, and it has to be trucked. That is going to mean little more than $2 for corn. If those are not depressed prices, I do not know what is. If the member does not understand that, he does not know very much about agriculture. Gas is now 42.6 cents a litre. We used to buy gas at 25 cents a gallon, which is 4.5 litres, and we were getting $2 for our corn at that time.

I do not think the member can really understand why the agricultural industry is in trouble. The cost of production has increased. Everybody gets a four or five per cent increase, sometimes up to 10 per cent a year, but the farmer's products come in at lower and lower prices. There is no way they can balance the scales. The resolution is focusing attention on the real concerns, because when the farmer is in trouble rural municipalities will not grow.

We do have other alternatives, as the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) indicated. Senior citizen accommodation is needed in rural Ontario. It does provide employment and it also provides a strength to the municipality, because we have a place for our old folks. We are all going to get to that point sooner or later and it is always nice to know one can stay in one's own community.

Industrial parks in the area of Haldimand-Norfolk have been set aside. Only a fraction of those areas have been utilized. We have an industrial park set up by Stelco with room enough to handle the new Toyota plant. With the basic steel requirements and the basic services in place, that could provide a lot of work for rural Ontario. It could grow and protect the rural atmosphere and provide jobs too. I hope Toyota gives that a lot of consideration because it would be a great place to locate.

I want to emphasize one more time that the resolution is good. It is good to have input from all sides of the House. We have a minority government and we will be listening for that input to strengthen rural Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): I would like to remind the member for Oxford there are two minutes left.

Mr. Treleaven: Yes, two minutes. I will move along.

First, I would like to state that I wish to support the resolution. I am particularly pleased to speak on it since the member who proposed the resolution and I have very similar ridings, primarily dairy. Perhaps the main difference is that I have more tobacco along the south edge of my riding and the county than perhaps does the county of Middlesex.

This resolution is about the family farm. I remember being at a hog producers' meeting at which Clay Switzer spoke. He brought up statistics of off-farm income of farmers. Quite frankly, I and the others in the room were quite shocked at the numbers. In the affluent agricultural counties of Perth, Oxford and Middlesex, 70 or 80 per cent of the farmers had off-farm income. If the government will pay attention to the member's resolution and come forward with some of those programs, it will be a great boon to our constituents and to these farmers who are in the process of having to leave the family farm.

In my riding, we have particular problems in the tobacco industry. This type of resolution, increasing the number of commercial and industrial ventures in the rural areas, would greatly help.

I might say the previous government had the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program and the enterprise Ontario program, which did not come about because of the fall of the government. The present government has not brought along programs to replace those. If they would help the shoulder season and help the farm income situation, things would be greatly improved in our situation.

Mr. Reycraft: I want to thank the members of the House for their participation in the debate and their many helpful suggestions, but most particularly for their expressed concern and recognition of the gravity of the situation that faces Ontario's rural citizens. They are proud citizens and they personify the very virtues that made our province and our country great, things such as diligence and dignity; love of God, neighbour and family; respect for the laws of nature and the laws of government; and an independence of spirit that has made them and our country free and strong.

They are bold people and they are proud. It is not easy for them to ask for help. When they do, we should know darned well the situation must be desperate, and it is desperate. There is no other way to put it. We cannot allow Ontario's farmers to be pushed around by the actions of other provinces. We cannot allow our farmers to be left twisting in the wind because of the inaction of the federal government.

Ontario leads all the other provinces in agricultural production. Ontario must lead the way in the struggle to protect and revitalize the agricultural community. The main objective of Ontario agricultural policy must be to preserve the family farm. If the family farm is kept healthy, the agricultural industry itself is healthy and the province as well. We cannot afford to do nothing. We cannot even afford to wait much longer.

Not only an economic crisis confronts us, but a profound social, cultural and moral upheaval that is rocking the very foundations of our rural communities. A way of life is being threatened, a way of life that embodies the principles and the virtues that define who we are as a people and what we stand for. Our farmers, our rural citizens, have given us much over many years and now they need our help. It is only just that we give it. Let us join the agricultural community in its efforts to save the family farm and the way of life it has come to symbolize.

To keep the ball rolling and to make sure that rhetoric is translated into action, I will forward the transcript of this debate to the interministerial task force the Minister of Agriculture and Food has assembled, and I will make myself available to its members to help in any way I can.

WINE PRICING

Mr. Partington moved, seconded by Mr. Andrewes, resolution 13:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing the growing difficulties experienced by Ontario wine producers due to falling market shares and unfair trading actions by foreign governments, the government of Ontario should accept and implement the proposals of the Wine Council of Ontario regarding a revised pricing structure for wines sold in Ontario as contained within their document, the Niagara accord. Specifically, the government should: increase the nondiscriminatory reference price by seven per cent; reduce markup rates; reduce the special winery retail store tax to one per cent; impose a flat tax rate of $12 per case of twelve 750-millilitre bottles to be added after markup changes; and review the flat tax rate annually.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. Partington: I am honoured to have the opportunity to put forth this resolution to the House and I am equally honoured to be given the opportunity to lead off this debate. As a new member, I have been looking forward to participating in private members' business. I am hopeful that the timing of this resolution and its importance to the grape and wine industry may result in unusual attention being given to today's proceedings, especially by members opposite.

The economic health and viability of Ontario wine producers and grape growers is of great concern to me, a concern that is shared by all members. It is important that the serious difficulties of the industry, as outlined by the Wine Council of Ontario, be recognized, especially in the light of the further assault on the wine industry set out in last Thursday's budget.

Last October, when the Liberals were in opposition, the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) demanded that the government institute recommendations which were similar to those before the House today. He said, "It is important to act immediately instead of waiting for yet another of the task force reports."

The proposals of the Wine Council of Ontario, similar to those endorsed by the member for St. Catharines, were brought to the attention of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) as soon as he was appointed in June. If the member for St. Catharines and the Premier are not to be regarded as having turned their backs on Niagara's farmers, they had best introduce themselves to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), because he does not understand the industry or the impact of his ill-considered tax increases on wine.

It is apparent that the Liberals are really big on promises but rather short on following through. They have backed away from so many of their promises that it is impossible to know where they stand on many issues. On this issue, however, they have declared themselves and will now have to defend their ill-considered conduct. It is to be hoped that by the end of the day, the Liberals will have seen the light and will tangibly demonstrate their concern for the survival of Ontario's grape and wine industry.

Some members may not be aware of the important contribution this industry makes to our economy. In Ontario, we have 900 vineyards with close to 24,000 acres in production. The grape-growing industry provides 16,000 full-time and seasonal jobs. Ontario wineries employ more than 900 people and last year generated close to $200 million worth of sales.

In addition to being a vital part of our economy, the wine industry has been an integral part of Ontario life for more than a century. Throughout the years, the industry has grown and adapted to accommodate the tastes of each new generation. Today, we can all be proud of the accomplishments of this industry. For several years, the industry has produced world-class wines, with many of the wines winning awards around the globe.

Many of the members are aware of the extreme difficulties now facing Ontario's wine producers and grape growers. Since 1983, Ontario wineries have witnessed a drop in market share from more than 54 per cent to less than 49 per cent this year. In real terms, this represents a loss in sales of nearly 400,000 cases of wine. This is equivalent to the entire 1984 production of 10 of Ontario's 17 wineries.

This, in combination with bumper grape harvests in both 1983 and 1984, has resulted in depressed prices for grapes and an overall surplus in grape production. In 1984, the surplus amounted to more than 30,000 tons. The total cost to the taxpayer for this surplus was estimated to exceed $14 million. For the grape grower, this translated into prices averaging six per cent below those obtained in 1983. This year, prices have fallen by yet another four per cent.

The government must realize that if these trends are allowed to continue there will be severe consequences for our domestic grape and wine industries. The cause of this comparative decline during a period of steady demand is well known. The cost of imported wine is continuing to decline in large part because of huge and pervasive foreign government subsidies and dumping practices that are apparently uncontrollable under the regulations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

I do not pretend the provincial government, especially the current provincial government, can influence all the factors affecting the grape and wine industry, but it must be sure not to add to its troubles.

Over the years, the Ontario government, under the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party, has demonstrated its commitment to this industry. As the government, we instituted a number of initiatives designed to protect and promote the growth of our domestic grape and wine industry.

When foreign jurisdictions complained that the handling charge of 65 cents per 750-millilitre bottle on imported wine was in violation of GATT, the Progressive Conservative government acted to establish a minimum price for all wines. This was expected to give the domestic industry a boost in the face of booming sales of cheap, subsidized wines, imported particularly from Italy. There was a fear that if this trend were allowed to continue, Ontario would become nothing more than a dumping ground for cheap products from foreign jurisdictions.

The establishment of a reference floor price was successful in stemming the inflow of artificially low-priced Italian wines. However, with the subsequent devaluation of the French franc by 17.2 per cent, it became apparent that the entire pricing system and the various assistance programs needed to be overhauled to ensure the industry would survive.

For this reason, the Progressive Conservative government established two separate task forces to examine and develop programs that would address both the short-term and long-term problems facing the industry. Unfortunately, the events of the past year prevented us from seeing these initiatives through to completion. It now appears the Liberals propose to exacerbate an already critical situation.

As the new member for Brock riding, I feel compelled to present this resolution. Six of the 17 Ontario wineries are located in Brock riding. Of those, we have represented the oldest and the newest wineries in Ontario, one of the largest and several smaller, prestigious ones. Furthermore, 40 per cent of the 24,000 acres of land in Ontario producing grapes, the single most valuable food processing crop, is in Brock riding. Most of the grape crop goes directly into wine production. If we are interested in preserving fruit lands, we must ensure that the grape industry remains vibrant and productive. There is no realistic land-use substitute for grape farming or vineyards.

The grape industry provides essential employment in an area of high unemployment. Related industries in Brock riding -- for example, trucking and spray and equipment dealers -- also depend on the viability of the grape and wine industry. The grape growers have spent millions of dollars converting existing vineyards to the newer hybrid and vinifera grape varieties. Now the industry is facing rapidly escalating costs in interest rates, labour, sprays, fuels, equipment and every other aspect of its operation.

We all must recognize that for the grape growers to sell their crops, it is essential for wineries to sell their wines. Consequently, I have proposed this resolution to urge the present government to implement what I believe is a reasonable and sound program which will alleviate the crisis currently faced by Ontario's wineries and grape growers.

The proposal, as outlined by the Wine Council of Ontario, calls for a restructuring of the current wine pricing system in Ontario. I might add that all 17 Ontario wineries are members of the council and all support the proposal.

4:50 p.m.

The council has made five main recommendations to alter the current pricing system in Ontario. Under the first, the reference price for wine, which was established in 1983, would be increased by seven per cent. This represents the amount of increase in the consumer price index between July 30, 1983, and April 30, 1985. As a result, the new minimum delivered price per case of 12 one-litre bottles, prior to the imposition of federal excise and sales tax, would rise to $19.90.

The second recommendation calls for the reduction of markup rates across the board by 57 per cent. This will maintain the established price differential between foreign and domestic wines, yet permit the price of most wines to fall.

The third proposal recommends that a flat tax rate of $12 per case of twelve 750-millilitre bottles be added to all wines after the new markup rates have been applied. It is recommended that this tax be reviewed annually.

The fourth proposal is for the reduction of the special winery retail store tax from five per cent to one per cent. The wineries would maintain the current markup and flat tax rates on sales through winery retail stores.

Finally, it is recommended that the 12 per cent Ontario retail tax be retained.

The net effect of implementing these recommendations will be a reduction in price for all Ontario wines and a reduction in price for all imported wines currently valued above $4.60 per 750-millilitre bottle.

The effect of this price reduction will be most notable for the more expensive wines. For example, a bottle of Mumm champagne, which currently retails for $19.65, will retail for $15.75 under the new pricing system. Similarly, a bottle of Estate Riesling by Chateau Des Charmes will drop from $9.40 to $7.15.

Most notably, however, these recommendations will provide a price difference of $1 per litre between the lowest-priced imported wines and Ontario products in favour of Ontario wine. It is expected this new pricing system will assist both large and small wineries and permit the industry to return to a more positive position in the marketplace.

While implementation of these recommendations will not eliminate the current surplus of grapes, it should translate into increased purchases of Ontario grapes by wineries as they plan for greater sales. Additionally, the wine council has assured me that this proposal, when presented to the American wine industry in 1984, was endorsed enthusiastically. Furthermore, it is in full accordance with our international GATT obligations.

As I pointed out earlier, the Premier was made aware of these proposals as early as June 1985. Nevertheless, he has apparently endorsed the suggestion of a flat tax increase of 10 cents a bottle. He should recognize that the European Community producers may just land their wine in Ontario at 10 cents a bottle cheaper, a subsidized luxury that Ontario farmers and wineries cannot afford.

In summary, I believe the wine council proposal will provide the industry with the assistance it needs to remain a viable and integral part of Ontario's economy. I look forward to hearing the comments of my colleagues on this resolution. I am sure they have information to share with us which will be pertinent to this issue and which will contribute positively to this debate.

Mr. Swart: I am pleased to rise to speak on this issue and to indicate immediately that I am going to support the resolution brought before us by the member for Brock.

Anyone who is at all familiar with agriculture knows the rather desperate situation that agriculture in general is in. The grape farmers, who up until the past two or three years have escaped to some extent the serious situation in the farm community, may now be facing the bleakest future of all our agriculture producers.

They face that situation because of the lowering share of the market that Ontario wines command. They are in that position because of the lower prices grape growers are receiving for their product and because of the tremendous surpluses that took place last year and this year, largely because of the lower consumption and because of the competition from the subsidized foreign imports.

It is probably safe to say that the government, with elections behind us -- whether federal or provincial -- and with the restraint program, will not continue to make those purchases. If it does not, the grape growers and the wineries will be in a much more serious position than they are at present.

We should deal with this issue now. It cannot be delayed. I would have liked to have spoken on the previous motion here, but that motion was largely a motion of defeat for the agricultural community. It was an alternative to a viable agricultural community, and we do not want to see that in the grape-growing and wine industry.

I have to put on the record that I regret very much that when this very important debate is taking place, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) is not here, nor is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter). They have a right to be in their place while this kind of debate is taking place here.

We all know it is not the quality of Ontario wine that has caused the problem that exists. I do not need to go into that in detail, but everybody who even reads the newspapers knows that the wines we produce now in the Niagara area are equal to any of the wines in the world. I have a newspaper clipping here from April 24, entitled "Ontario Wines Beat French." I will not read it because of the time problem. I have another one here, from February 1985, entitled "Trans-Atlantic Wine Tasting Brings Praise from British Writers for Ontario Wines."

We have good wines in this province. We do not have any antifreeze, ethylene glycol or anything of that nature in them. Our grape growers are also cost-efficient in the production of our grapes. If we could compete on an even basis with the rest of the world and with the United States, without any subsidies, Ontario wines would sell more cheaply than any of the imports. Unfortunately, we cannot do that.

I say I am supporting this resolution, and I am. However, I am a bit surprised that it comes from a member of the Conservative Party. Sincere as the member may be, and I think he is sincere in this, the record of the Conservative government of this province leaves an awful lot to be desired.

The Tory government had the opportunity in 1984 to implement the items the member has in his present resolution. The recommendation in his resolution was made back on July 16, 1984. The Tory government was in power for almost a year after that, and nothing was done about the recommendation he has in his resolution.

The Tories were the ones who prematurely took off the handling charge of 65 cents per bottle. The Tory government dropped it very quickly once it got a little bit of criticism from other sources outside this country.

The Tory government implemented the abortive sale last June. Does the member recall the sale that the Liquor Control Board of Ontario was going to have on wines? It was built up to be a great sale. It was going to last three or four months and really push Ontario wines. When it came out, it did not push Ontario wines at all.

I have a clipping here from the St. Catharines Standard, which I presume the member who moved this motion reads occasionally, entitled "Wine Sales Upset Growers, Wineries." The article quotes Brian Nash, chairman of the Ontario Grape Growers' Marketing Board, as saying: "It has gone from good to bad to terrible. It has been a big screwup all the way through."

5 p.m.

It was the Conservative government of this province that did that. Of course, those people are the ones who have their partisan colleagues now in Ottawa, and they are doing nothing about the foreign imports that are coming in. They have been in Ottawa now for almost a year and two months. What have they done to stop these tremendously subsidized imports from coming in? Not a thing. I have several letters from Brian Nash. We have had correspondence back and forth and he and the grape growers lay most of the blame, and rightly so, on the inadequate policies of Ottawa on stopping these subsidized imports.

I am surprised that this resolution before us today makes no mention of calling on the federal government to deal with that. Is that not amazing? It does not even call on this government to make an approach to the federal government to stop those imports.

I want to say to my Liberal friends that they did not do anything to help the industry when they added 10 cents a bottle to the price of our wine this year. Also, putting wine in grocery stores, as they propose, is not going to help the wine industry; it is going to hurt it. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has said it will not be confined to the sale of Ontario or even Canadian wines. Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, perhaps he cannot confine it to that.

If wine is sold in grocery stores and people can buy foreign wine cheaper than they can buy Ontario-produced wine and make more markup on it, that is the wine they are going to sell. They will not give the preferential treatment the Liquor Control Board of Ontario frequently has tried to give.

The proposal by the Wine Council of Ontario makes sense. It is patently obvious that the huge subsidization of the great wine industry of the European common market permits Canada to impose countervailing duties and thus the proposals by the wine industry are workable. Time is running out and I will not take time to read it. They have the approval of the United States wine industry for the imposition of these tax levies and for the changes that are being proposed.

I suggest these measures can go a long way towards helping the wine industry in this province if the government has the courage and is willing to make the financial input necessary to do this. If we can move the federal government to impose those countervailing duties, it can do so. There is no question about it. It is easy to prove those wines are being subsidized.

I conclude by calling on the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- I hope he will at least read this debate -- to implement the contents of this resolution even though the Tory government would not do it for the 42 years it was in power.

Mr. Offer: It is interesting to note that reference was made to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I would like to clear the record that at this very time he is in consultation and working with the farmers of this province to help them with respect to their concerns.

Mr. Wildman: Where is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations?

Mr. Offer: I think I have an answer.

I wish to speak to this resolution, not only because it addresses an issue that has presented some difficulties in the past but also because the belated issues of Ontario wine sales and the province's grape surplus demand the attention that will lead to a lasting resolution.

As a member of this House and as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I wish to express my concern for Ontario's grape growers and Ontario's wine industry. The grape-growing industry is not the largest player in our province's agricultural sector, nor do our wineries consider themselves a major industry in league with giants like Ford, General Motors, or Stelco. Nevertheless, our grape growers and wineries combine to employ more than 15,000 people on a permanent and seasonal basis and, as such, make a valuable contribution to our provincial economy. Such a contribution cannot be taken lightly or ignored.

Similarly, it is impossible to ignore Ontario's position in the global trading market, a position codified and monitored by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, to which Canada subscribes. The necessary presence of GATT globally requires that the Ontario marketplace not operate in a vacuum. It is incumbent on us to ensure any action we take in our domestic markets is consistent with our GATT obligations. To not do so would provide our trading partners with the opportunity to retaliate against practices considered discriminatory.

Ontario maintains a vulnerable position in world trading markets. My concern is that if our trading partners ever took punitive measures, they could outweigh what we might be trying to accomplish domestically. That represents a great risk to Ontario as a world trader. Our goods and services are establishing a name for themselves on the world marketplace, and our trading position should not be jeopardized. It is a fragile state of affairs and often creates situations which the more impatient among us understandably find uncomfortable. Nevertheless, the existence of GATT has benefited Ontario in the world marketplace. Consequently, its presence must be given serious consideration during any deliberation on the problems faced by Ontario's grape growers and wineries.

While expressing respect and empathy for the intent of the action proposed by the member for Brock, I suggest the problems it addresses will require further study and negotiations before a domestically workable and internationally acceptable solution is found. The resolution we address here today concentrates on the retail end of the wine spectrum. While appreciating the impact the suggested actions might have on wine sales, I also recognize there is a supply-and-demand imbalance in this area which the proposals might not fully address.

Over the past five years, Ontario wines have faced considerable competition to maintain their market share. Although the volume of Ontario wine sold has steadily increased from 7.6 million gallons to 9.1 million gallons annually over the last five-year period, our wine products have experienced a decrease in market share over the past two years. Yet over the past three years there has been a significant increase in grape production, resulting in substantial crop surpluses. Last year, it amounted to 33,000 tons, although the picture is not expected to be as bleak this year.

I am certain there is little consolation for any of us in the news that other grape-growing countries are experiencing similar surpluses. This year, estimates have placed the grape surplus in New York state at 15,000 tons and large surpluses are also expected in some member countries of the European Community. I will not dwell on the macroeconomics of the situation, except to say that such grape surpluses invariably lead to wine surpluses, which in turn lead to a search for new markets. This likely explains the request from our European Community trading partners for a review of Ontario's compliance with GATT with respect to our wine marketing practices.

5:10 p.m.

It may also explain the fact the United States, under its Wine Equity and Export Expansion Act, has designated Canada as a country to which it wishes to increase its wine exports. The United States may require us to eliminate barriers in the way of its wine exports.

Specifically, we could face retaliation if it is determined our wine markup, listing and distribution practices are discriminatory. Such retaliation could include imposing high tariffs on important exports to Europe, such as auto parts, and important exports to the United States, such as rye whisky and beer. This could cause serious economic harm to those Ontario industries.

The point is, the effects of resolutions such as we have before us today should be given careful consideration in the context of GATT, the Wine Equity and Export Expansion Act and the possible negative impact it might have on our trading relations.

To this end, I am sure many members of the House are anxiously awaiting the report on the province's grape and wine industries prepared by a task force chaired by Professor Jack Tanner of Guelph University, which was established to recommend long-term solutions to the problems of the two industries. It is my hope its report will deal thoroughly with domestic as well as international realities and provide a sound footing for future action.

In the absence of the Tanner report and until such time as ongoing negotiations within GATT and the United States are resolved, it might be improvident for us to take action of the type suggested today, regardless of good intention and sincerity.

Mr. Andrewes: I rise to support the resolution and to support my colleague's initiative in this regard. From my own perspective on this, there are about 800 grape growers in Ontario and approximately 400 reside in that great part of the Niagara Peninsula known as the riding of Lincoln. There are also a number of local wineries of some repute and they are certainly gaining in that reputation.

After the impassioned appeal of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), I am somewhat tempted to move an amendment to the resolution, but knowing the emphasis and intent of it rests with this government, I intend to leave it the way it is.

Over the years, I have had an opportunity to speak in support of the grape and wine industry. This may be of some interest to the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) if he is ever allowed into western Canada. After some of the things he said recently about our friends to the west, he may not be.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of personal privilege --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): This is not a matter of privilege. Please continue.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: This is very important. It is a personal privilege.

The Acting Speaker: Go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I want to make it very clear I have never said anything about my western friends that I would not say in this Legislature. I want the member to understand they are my friends and I would go there and be welcomed.

Mr. Andrewes: I am not sure that is a point of privilege.

The Acting Speaker: I agree.

Mr. Andrewes: I want to tell the member for Niagara Falls that when he makes up with western Canada, when he is allowed to cross that great divide that exists between Saskatchewan and Manitoba and is allowed into the western part of our region, he may find himself having an opportunity to speak to some of his colleagues, some of the members of the energy industry and something called the Petroleum Club.

A number of years ago, in a previous incarnation, it was my privilege to flog the values of Ontario wines to members of that club. I am sure its steward and wine cellars are now that much richer. It is ironic that one can buy Ontario wine in Alberta for less than one can buy it in Ontario.

I was looking forward to seeing the member for St. Catharines here for this debate because the grape and wine industry in Ontario has had a great number of strong ties with the Ontario government, particularly with the cartel operated by the government in the sale of wine and alcoholic beverages called the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. There has been a long history of strong relationship, developed particularly through members who represented the areas where grapes are produced and where the wineries exist. That relationship was very strongly carried forward by the former member for Brock, the Honourable Robert Welch, the former Deputy Premier of the province. It is appropriate that this resolution should come from his successor.

It is particularly important that the relationship between the industry and government be carried strongly to the sacred corridors at the end of this hall known as the executive council. I am delighted and enthusiastic that the member for St. Catharines has spoken out on occasion in support of the intent of this resolution. I am sure his colleague the member for Niagara Falls will support him when it comes to that discussion around the table.

I can tell the member for Niagara Falls and the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) that I am very impressed with the kind words of support that we are now hearing from the Premier about Ontario wine. He was at the Grape and Wine Festival this fall and he told the media there that he and his wife had enjoyed a bottle of Ontario wine the previous night. So we can now anticipate substantial improvement in the inventories in the wine cellars of the London Hunt Club, where Mouton-Cadet will now become Chateau des Charmes Riesling, where Mumm will become Brights President, and Kressman will be replaced by some suitable Colio red wine from the great southwestern Ontario region.

It was the member for St. Catharines who about a year ago, in his role as a member of the opposition, advocated a similar support for this resolution in statements he made to the London Free Press and to the St. Catharines Standard. He indicated that any loss in revenue that might be generated by this change in markup structure would be more than made up by increased sales.

It is ironic that the timing of this resolution, which was originally scheduled to be debated last Thursday, was bumped by the Treasurer and his budget in which we saw increased taxes on Ontario's wines and all other wines.

I want to put this in some perspective because the anticipated increase in revenue from that one tax measure amounts to nearly half the value of grapes sold in this province in 1985. The sentiments of the industry were well expressed in an article in the St. Catharines Standard of October 26, where Mr. Nash, the chairman of the Ontario Grape Growers Marketing Board said:

"The increase in taxes is a bitter pill to swallow. With the stroke of a pen, the government is taking half what grape growers get out of a bottle of wine. It could push the industry to the brink. Perhaps they are trying to get rid of us. Not in my time have we been hammered as hard in one shot as we have this time."

5:20 p.m.

Enough of that. With the limited time I have left, I want to get into some of the history. It is important that we put on the record some of the history of this industry, an important segment of which began in 1975 when a substantial surplus of the wrong kind of grapes found itself lacking a market. It was the Ontario government at that time, a Conservative government, which moved to support the industry by buying that surplus and having it manufactured into brandy, a new product for the grape and wine industry in Ontario, which went into inventory at the expense of the Ontario government, not the federal government. This was 1975.

At the same time, the government provided assistance to growers to remove those varieties which were no longer in demand and replace them with newer, more progressive, more palatable varieties for better table wines. It was the same government in 1981, when faced with an international surplus problem, that moved to impose a handling charge which compensated the Liquor Control Board of Ontario for the higher costs of inventory on imported wines when they were not forced to carry that inventory of domestic wines.

It was the leader of our party, the former Treasurer, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), who listened carefully to the industry at that time and implemented that handling charge, and it worked very well. It worked well until 1982, when complaints by the government of the United States that the handling charge violated the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade forced its removal. The handling charge was replaced by a reference price -- a floor price which worked reasonably well until the fall in value of the French franc and the subsequent inundation of Ontario markets by French products.

We have had continued pressure from those subsidized imports, subsidies that consist of vineyard reorganization subsidies of $180 million and distillation subsidies of $780 million, plus the participation of member states in the long term and short-term storage subsidies of $113 million, and that is only a modest part of the kinds of subsidies that the European community is imposing on the industry.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have clearly set out for you and members of the House the situation and I ask the members to support the resolution.

[Applause]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Timiskaming.

Mr. Ramsay: I would like to thank the members opposite for that applause as I stood up. It was very well appreciated. It was for me, but I was not asking for any. I would like to thank the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) as well as the members over there, too.

I would say to the member wearing the orange tie, who is sitting across the way now, if he could muzzle the member he is beside it would be greatly appreciated. Maybe he could cut some trees or something for us.

The two bills this afternoon are both involved with the agricultural industry. It shows that this industry in this province is in real trouble and as a government we are going to have to start to look at an agricultural policy.

Grape and wine production is an industry we are going to have to look at because we are really blessed with wonderful soils and climate and we can produce a good wine. This is also moving to other parts of the province besides the Niagara Peninsula. We are now producing in Essex some very good wines, Colio Wines being one.

I know it is the riding of my friend the member for Essex South. Maybe in the next election --

Mr. Mancini: I will take care of Essex, thanks a lot.

Mr. Ramsay: We will have to see what happens when the two Essexes become one.

I would like to put a bid in for some of the wine that came from Italy that was pulled off the shelves today. I have trucks and tractors at the farm and I need antifreeze in the winter in Timiskaming. This may be a cheap source of antifreeze. I am very proud to say that Canadian wines do not have these contaminants in them. We can certainly trust that we are getting very good -- what is everybody looking at me for? Everybody please go back and read. I am having a good time here.

Back in the north, we are looking for that cheap source of antifreeze, and maybe Italian wine is the answer.

Mr. Guindon: What does the member have against Italian wine?

Mr. Ramsay: I will not be provoked as the previous member for Timiskaming was on several occasions. I am only against the Italian wine that has been pulled off the shelves. Unfortunately, it had been chemically poisoned. It is a shame to see unscrupulous profiteers in the wine industry in Europe. I thought it was just the Austrians who were into that. Now we see it in some Italian wines, too, and it is very unfortunate.

This is a big industry. As well as all the farms in southwestern Ontario and the Niagara Peninsula involved in grape production, there are 900 people engaged in the industry. We are talking about $200 million worth of sales in this industry; so it is a significant part of the agrifood business of this province. We are looking at 15,000 Ontarians engaged in farming grapes in the Niagara Peninsula and in southwestern Ontario. It is not a large industry in comparison to auto parts or steel, but the operations are well-concentrated within Ontario and it is a vital part of the Niagara region.

Moreover, there are four major producers accounting for 70 per cent of all the domestic sales of wines in this province. It has been an industry that has evolved over time in Ontario, using many of the European grapes that have been developed since the Second World War. We are starting to have a superior product in Ontario.

I would like to bring to the attention of the members that in August 1983 the Ontario government removed the handling charge of 65 cents per bottle on imported products. That seems to me to run contrary to the support of our domestic products. I question why the government did that. It was a shame not to support Ontario wine at that time. Now we have a private member's resolution from a member of that party asking for forgiveness and saying this present government should do something. Certainly this government should do something. I support in full measure the intent of the resolution proposed today.

During the last eight months, there has been a lot of study, consultation and negotiation with the wine industry. Some practical plans have been developed for regaining the traditional market share, which has fallen in Ontario. Prior to having that package submitted by the wine growers to the Ontario government on July 16, 1984, the industry met with US grape and wine producers and obtained support for their proposals for altering the pricing structures for wines sold in Ontario. That is referred to as the Niagara accord. I support that accord.

One of the problems is the heavy subsidization that the European Community has given to European wines. Grapes and wine in the EC are considered primary agriculture products and are covered by its common agricultural policy. Through various subsidy mechanisms, substantial funds are provided to the European grape and wine producers, the effect of which is to lower their cost of production.

For the most part, European grape and wine producers receive assistance through three major subsidy programs: vineyard reorganization subsidies, distillation subsidies and long- and short-term storage subsidies. The comment has been made that they are excellent programs. Maybe we should see them over here in Ontario, instead of being over in Europe, and not let the Europeans get away with those programs for bringing their cheap product over here.

In addition, there are several state programs in Europe to provide further financial assistance to grape and wine producers through the provision of grants, low-interest loans, rebates on packaging costs for wine destined for export and accelerated depreciation allowances. All these things are possible models we could be looking at in Ontario.

I support this bill in full measure.

Mr. Mancini: I am very pleased to take part in this debate and have been very pleased to listen to some of the remarks made by the members opposite.

Mr. Ramsay: I wish the minister was listening.

Mr. Mancini: The minister is listening, as he always does.

5:30 p.m.

I was very interested in the remarks made by the member for Timiskaming, the young, new, brash member from the north, who is very anxious to look after Essex county and very concerned about what is going to happen when the two Essexes are joined. I am sure there are others who share his concern.

This matter of wine pricing and assistance to the wine industry should be separated into two categories. One is assistance to the industry, how best we can ensure its viability and future strength. Pricing should be a separate issue altogether.

I say that because of the recent experience I have had at the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, where I am able to read many of the documents sent to the Premier, as he is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on international matters.

One of the matters of international concern, as has already been pointed out by many of the members who have spoken earlier, is the problems and objections that are being put before the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade by European countries which feel we are using discriminatory practices in retail outlets and in the pricing of wines.

While they can make a case that under GATT this may be discriminatory, I believe we also can make a case, as was suggested earlier, on account of the tremendous amount of subsidization European countries give to their agricultural industries. I am sure all of us are aware that one of the biggest difficulties facing the European Community is the tremendous level of subsidy given to the farming community in Europe.

It is now so great it is straining EC. At all meetings at which EC members attend, there is usually a battle involving England, France, Italy and other countries as to how much more of these subsidies the European Community can afford.

Yes, we have some difficulties with GATT. Only some weeks ago, a senior member of parliament from Italy, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of External Affairs, former Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti's parliamentary assistant, was here and told us point blank: "We feel deeply that you are contravening GATT. We have already made our feelings known to GATT and we are going to proceed to GATT." They are going to take us to the international court, whether we like it or not. That issue of pricing is very important.

How do we price the market fairly, get the product to the consumer in an adequate fashion and still remain able to compete because of the subsidization from Europe? I do not think anyone out there can convince any of us the latter is not occurring.

I think the member has his heart in the right place. We have heard from other members from the Niagara Peninsula. My colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has spoken on many occasions in the past on the importance of the wine industry and some of the things he felt the government of the day should be doing.

As a government, we are concerned and aware of the situation. I firmly believe the member's efforts are honest in this regard and that his feelings, concerns and the resolution he has introduced are part of a genuine effort to try to help an industry that is struggling at the moment. This may not be the correct answer, but the member's feelings are in the right place. I want to make that very clear.

In Essex county -- I am very happy the member for Timiskaming is allowing me to speak for it -- I am pleased that we have a wine industry that is growing rapidly. I want to ask the member for Timiskaming whether he has had a bottle of Colio or a bottle of Pelee Island wine lately? It is really great stuff.

Mr. Ramsay: Yes, I have. It is magnificent.

Mr. Mancini: It is really great stuff. Thank you for supporting our industry.

There still are some outstanding issues we have to address when we talk about wine and the problems facing the wine industry. I am aware that the wine industry task force has not yet reported. I think that is correct. I am aware, as I said earlier, that we are going to end up at a GATT panel hearing if we do not in some way appease the people who feel we are breaking international agreements. I am told a committee has been appointed by cabinet to investigate the GATT problem.

The final piece of information I received from a particular government department was that the proposal of the member would cost about $22 million. I am not sure how that figure was worked out, but I assume the senior officials in that department came up with the right figure and are not going to pass on to us figures that are not correct and that we cannot use. Is this the best way to use the $22 million or are there other, more imaginative ways to spend $22 million in support of the wine industry? Of course, his bottom line is that if we do not get the money from that sector, someone else has to pick up the cost. That is plain logic.

I know how concerned the government House leader is about the deficit. If we do not raise taxes, we will have to increase the deficit another $22 million. The member will be up asking us questions again tomorrow. Actually, the only reason the deficit has gone up this year is that we had to redo all the offices the Liberals used to occupy so that those guys could go in and occupy them. We spent all the money redoing all those offices and providing brass lamps, plants, new typewriters and all that kind of stuff so those guys would not feel so badly about it. However, that has nothing to do with the wine industry.

I want to conclude by saying that we understand what the member wants to accomplish. Our government is interested. I think many of the details we are concerned about have been put on the record by myself and others. I think we can support the member's resolution. I can support his resolution.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth has about seven and a half minutes.

Mr. Dean: I think I can fit my garment to that cloth, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to join my colleagues from all sides of the House in supporting this very worthwhile resolution. Like my colleague the member for Brock and my colleague the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes), I am greatly concerned about the market situation for the grape growers of Ontario.

As has been mentioned already, grape production is more than 100 years old in Ontario. During that period much of it has gone for fresh use, for juice and for preserved items, but most of all it has been used for the production of wine.

Until about 15 or 20 years ago, the majority of the grapes grown in Ontario were of the species called labrusca, that is, the native American grape. Concord and Niagara recall some of the varieties. Since then, many plantings of various hybrids of labrusca and vinifera, which we normally think of as European or Californian grapes, have been made. The latter are preferred for winemaking but are too tender for Niagara's winters. With the coming of the hybrids, they are hearty enough to live in the Niagara Peninsula and still possess the good quality of their vinifera parents that have brought us to the present situation.

Wines from the new varieties, which now are grown in considerable quantities, are equal to the best in Europe, and some are better.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member had better believe that.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Dean: As a matter of fact, as the member for Niagara Falls is suggesting, some blind taste tests on so-called experts showed they preferred Ontario wine. We have seen the growth of small, innovative, specialty wineries as a result of that, and discriminating consumers of wine now use Ontario brands with confidence. I had an argument with a head waiter in a certain hotel about that one time. I think he lost.

Having licked the problem of quality in wines, however, the growers and wineries are now battling a new adversary: the flood of imported wines. As the member for Lincoln and the member for Brock have mentioned, there is heavy subsidy of these wines by the governments of the Economic Community. On top of that, the devaluation of the currencies in France and Italy has given a further price advantage to some imports. As a result, our share of the wine market has declined sharply.

The resolution put forward by the member for Brock states clearly that several actions are needed by our government. I fully recognize that a great deal of responsibility still rests with the federal government, and it seems that whatever the colour of that government it is difficult to get it to take the necessary action. We all have to work on that too.

The proposals in the resolution have been agreed to by Ontario wine producers and by many of their US counterparts. The essential effect is to provide a price differential of $1 per litre between the cheapest imports and Ontario's products. The details of those proposals were spelled out by my colleague the member for Brock, and I will not repeat them.

While the enactment of these necessary reforms would not be a cure-all, it would arrest the downward slide of the market share of Ontario wines. We have been advised, contrary to some of the opinions expressed earlier by members on the government side, that this course of action will be acceptable to the GATT rules.

This course of action or something like it is essential if we are going to keep farmers on the land. I know from personal experience from my farming background, as a number of members here know, that the financial returns just are not there under the present conditions. For example, my brother and I operated a fruit farm together until I heard the siren call of politics.

Mr. G. I. Miller: The member answered the wrong call.

Mr. Dean: The wrong siren maybe.

From the records we kept on the production of grapes for wine we came up with the following interesting but depressing results. After paying all the costs of production and harvesting for most years, allowing ourselves the magnificent sum of $5 an hour for our own time and a modest return on the capital that was invested in land, plantings, buildings and machinery, what did we find? We lost money on the year's operations. Why did we not end up in bankruptcy? That result really means we did not get $5 an hour for our time, and we did not get that kind of return on the money that was invested in it. One cannot go on doing that for ever.

Does one wonder that farmers have to have a second job? Are we surprised that owners of farm land sell it, even if it hurts sentimentally, for other uses whenever there is an opportunity? If we are serious as a society about preserving agricultural land, we have to start out by ensuring the farmer and his family can make a decent living on that land. In the long run, no one will farm land at a loss, no matter how well preserved it is, how many tears are shed over it by urban do-gooders or how committed the farmer is to making a go of it.

I believe strongly that the measures advocated in this resolution will be positive for the grape growers and the wine producers of Ontario. All members will do ourselves a favour by supporting it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Brock has five minutes. There is a still a minute and a half for anyone else wishing to participate.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I want to take the opportunity to comment very briefly on the resolution that the member for Brock has brought forward. He and I have chatted in the past about this and about the problems confronting both those who are in the grape-growing end of things and those who are in the wine-producing end of things.

The resolution is a departure from what Treasurers in provinces usually like to see. However, those of us who have a very strong parochial interest in our communities and in the effect the lack of positive policies can have certainly would commend the member for Brock for bringing this forward and allowing a debate on a very important issue which will be confronting us for some time to come.

There is no question the pricing policy on wine is one that must be addressed in a positive fashion. I also recognize, as does the honourable member, we are facing some very difficult competition from overseas, and we must be prepared to support our industry, the grape growers and wine producers, if it is going to survive. On that basis, I hope his resolution gets favourable consideration.

Mr. Partington: After listening to the remarks and some of the supportive comments made by my colleagues, I am even more convinced the government must act, and act now, to prevent the crisis facing our grape and wine industry from worsening. While the government has made repeated promises to Niagara farmers, recent events have demonstrated that the Liberals have let them down once again.

The wine industry is not looking for a handout. They are not expecting the government to institute a program that would give them an unfair advantage. All they are asking for is the chance to compete fairly with foreign products within their own province. Failure to respond to this request could result in the collapse of our domestic grape and wine industry, jeopardizing the jobs, lives and wellbeing of 16,000 citizens and their families.

As members may be aware, I am a lawyer, not a farmer. It is said that all lawyers are fond of quotations since they are the common law substitute for an original mind. In that light, I have a farming quotation for the consideration of the House:

"Joseph said to the people, `Ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own for seed of the field and for food and for them of your households and for food for your little ones.'"

Members will no doubt recognize that as part of Genesis, chapter 47, verses 23 and 24.

When the grape and wine industry yields the bulk of its sale price to Pharaoh, in my opinion it is incumbent on Pharaoh to ensure that there are some parts left over for the farmer and his little ones. The government is in the process of failing in that responsibility. Consequently, I urge all members to join me in support of this resolution.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Pouliot: I realize time is of the essence, but when someone talks about wine, I have a great deal of difficulty remaining in my seat. I am not going to talk about Grande Cuvée, Petit Chablis or Beaujolais. Suffice it to say that European producers were making wines when Canada was still dry.

The debate is not centred on which palate we should look to satisfy in a free marketplace. What we are talking about is the survival of an industry that has been allowed to produce a concoction and market it under the word "wine." Nevertheless, it becomes very evident, if we are entitled to be parochial -- this is allowed -- if we are aware that our "produce" cannot survive --

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has now expired.

COMMERCIAL VENTURES IN RURAL AREAS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Reycraft has moved resolution 12.

Motion agreed to.

WINE PRICING

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Partington has moved resolution 13.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: My onerous and multiple duties almost led me to forget this important job.

I would like to indicate the business of the House for the remainder of this week and for next week.

Tonight, tomorrow and Monday, November 4, we will continue with the budget debate.

On Tuesday afternoon and evening, we will deal with Revenue Bills 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51, second reading and committee of the whole if required.

On Wednesday, the usual three committees may sit.

On Thursday afternoon, we will deal with private members' items standing in the names of Mr. Allen and Mr. McGuigan. In the evening, we will continue with Revenue bills not completed on Tuesday, if any.

On Friday, we will continue Revenue bills not completed Thursday evening, if any.

I would also like to indicate that the House will not sit in the chamber during the week of November 11. However, committees may sit if they wish.

The House recessed at 5:52 p.m.

31 octobre 1985