Hansard Transcripts 1981-Oct-22 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like your advice, sir. It has been reported to me you said in the procedural affairs committee this morning the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) and myself were out of order in bringing to your attention that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Walker) had been misdirected in the information he provided the House. This had to do with the statement made by the member for St. Catharines concerning the extension of licensed hours under a special occasion permit.

Since the honourable minister made an allegation in this House the honourable member knew to be incorrect, what recourse does he have other than rising at the first opportunity to ask you to have the honourable minister correct the situation?

I would bring to your attention that the honourable minister has never corrected the situation. It was even incorrectly reported in the Toronto Daily Star because it was allowed to go forward in this House without correction. If that is not a point of privilege, what is?

Mr. Martel: I would like to speak to my friend's point of order. Over the years the experience in this House has been that even if a member is wrongly accused of doing something, he is never allowed to make an accusation against the person charging him with that. For example, if someone were to be lying about you -- and I use that term carefully -- you are not allowed in this House to get up and accuse someone of lying, even though they might well be. The person who gets turfed out is not the person who makes the allegation, but the person defending himself. I have argued on a number of occasions and have been tossed out of this House on more than one occasion for that reason. Although I have argued the point, I have never been able to understand why we never have been able to get a Speaker to rule that the person making the accusation should have to correct the record.

Why should the onus be on the member being accused to get up in his place when he does not have a point or order, yet he knows what is said about him is incorrect? If he goes the route I went and calls someone a liar, he will be thrown out. It seems to me a decision on the matter and how it is to be resolved is long overdue.

In future, you should consider having the person making the allegation get up and withdraw or clarify the position. That is the individual who should be tossed out on his ear -- not the person aggrieved. As soon as that occurs once or twice, such despicable practices as displayed by the minister last week would stop. The circumstances last week certainly led this House to believe the member for St. Catharines was looking for special privileges for the Liberal Party.

I would ask you to do something to rectify this. Bring in a ruling or ask the procedural affairs committee to establish some sort of rule to rectify the situation once and for all.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to what appears to have been a point of order raised by the honourable member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. He has indicated there was some incorrectness in my comments on Friday. In light of the points of order raised by the member for St. Catharines, in light of the points of order raised by various members of that party, I reviewed the instant Hansard which was provided me at the time. I was satisfied in looking at it that every single comment I made was 100 per cent correct. I would ask any member who disputes that to tell me what section they consider incorrect.

I was speaking to exemptions or exceptions to rules generally and I very carefully pointed out that the case involving the St. Catharines' Liberal Association had to do with the special occasion permit. The matter involving the licence of the Harbour Castle Hotel for that international charity was an extension of the regular licence for one hour. I was referring to the general concept of exceptions that are made to rigid rules from time to time. I still stand by that. Having reviewed every word I said during that day I would say it is 100 per cent accurate.

Mr. Bradley: Rising on the point of order, I think the point the House leader for the Liberal Party is making is that the opportunity for members to refute the contention made by a person in the House should be allowed to us through a question of privilege in the House.

2:10 p.m.

What was reported. as far as the procedural affairs committee is concerned, was that somehow I was wrong in attempting to use a point of privilege to correct that misconception. The impression was left with most members of the House, and certainly was reported in the media, that the member for St. Catharines had been able to obtain, through intervention with the minister's office, an extension from 1 a.m. to 2 am., because that was the subject of the question. That was the impression that was given and, of course, that is totally inaccurate.

What I explained in my point of privilege was that all the member for St. Catharines had indicated he had asked for was the same privileges that had been extended to the Progressive Conservative Party a few weeks earlier and not to other groups.

Mr. Speaker: In replying to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk on the point of order he raised, I hope there is not any misunderstanding in what I said at the committee this morning.

I would like to call the attention of all members to this matter which was raised on a point of privilege. On Monday, May 25, I pointed out to the House, as have previous Speakers, that when a member considers the remarks of another member to be offensive it may constitute a point of order, but it is certainly not a point of privilege. That was the point I was trying to make.

I will repeat the definition of privilege as contained in standing order 18: "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

Actually, all I had said in the earlier ruling -- and I stand by it -- was that it was not a point of privilege. The member rose to correct the record, and there is nothing wrong with that, but I suggest it should have been raised as a point of order. That is the only point I was going to make. I hope that is clear -- that members do have the right to stand up and correct the record.

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Rule 26(c) says specifically, "After any policy statement the minister shall table a compendium of background information."

I want to bring to your attention that the compendium of background information that has been received with respect to the Suncor purchase consists only of documents already available in the public domain. It comprised the annual report of Sun Oil, the annual report of the Ontario Energy Corporation and other material that is readily available in the public domain. There has been no effort made by the government to make available to the members of this House any of the papers on which the decision to acquire Suncor was based.

In addition, while the announcement was made in this House on October 13, a week ago Tuesday, the one document that has been prepared here is dated October 21 -- yesterday.

I ask you to look at this, Mr. Speaker, with a view to ensuring that compendiums are prepared before announcements rather than a week afterwards and that the compendium of information is not just public relations material available generally but that it pertain directly to why the government decided to do what it has done.

Mr. Smith: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think this is an extremely serious matter, and I ask you to give it your very strict attention. You are aware, sir, that the purchase of 25 per cent, and the possible eventual purchase of 51 per cent, of a major oil company is one of the largest deals consummated in Ontario in recent memory.

The compendium that was being sought had to do with the facts upon which the government based this important decision for utilizing scarce and borrowed resources. It obviously dealt with the advice by McLeod, Young, Weir Limited, an analysis done by Price, Waterhouse and Company and any other such detailed information upon which the government may have based its decision.

It is very difficult for us in the opposition to be able to deal with this matter in any detail, other than a general impression we may have, if we are to be denied access to the information upon which the Premier (Mr. Davis) based his decision.

When we asked for a compendium we did not expect the matter to be treated as something of a joke. What else can one call a compendium which starts with a paper on Energy Security for the Eighties; A Policy for Ontario, a paper issued some time last year; a compendium which goes on to a speech made a year ago by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) on a so-called energy program; which reprints the national energy program as though members of this House were unaware of it, and then provides a glossy press handout which is obviously of no value at all in having reached a decision?

The only new piece of information was prepared just yesterday and has to do with information freely available in the public press or on the front page of the Suncor report itself.

I honestly believe a warped sense of humour has gone into the compilation of this so-called compendium, although I suppose one is more amused on some days than on other days. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a serious matter of this kind, to recognize that contempt is being shown for members of this Legislature. I would ask for a serious compendium to be given, containing the detailed financial information upon which the government made this decision. And I would ask you not to permit this government to continue to keep the elected representatives of the people of Ontario totally in the dark -- including their own back-bench members and maybe the ministers themselves -- on the financial basis of this vital and important transaction.

There is a time when democracy has to count for something in this House. I would think on a matter of this kind the humour shown by this compendium is not funny and deserves your attention, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that compendium means the facts -- a total collation of the information on which a decision was made. We know from what the Premier has said at his press conference there is information in addition to that which has been tabled in the Legislature. There is the information they got from the financial consulting firm, McLeod Young Weir, for example. Clearly the Premier and his government are in contempt of the standing orders of the Legislature.

Also, the government has an obligation to table those documents and the analysis its own officials did in considering the takeover of 25 per cent of Suncor; otherwise the Premier should get up in the House and say they made no analysis, that they did it by the seat of their pants.

Mr. Speaker: This matter has been raised on several occasions and quite obviously there is a difference of opinion on what --

Mr. Martel: Yes, but there is no action forthcoming.

Mr. Foulds: There is contempt for the standing orders of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The standing order of the House, as I understand it, has been dealt with. It is difficult for me to rule on the adequacy of the information. I am not privy to this type of information to make a judgement any more than any other member of this House; in fact, not as much. However, your point has been well made. It will be drawn to the attention of those people entrusted with the responsibility of providing this information.

Mr. Smith: We are not going to be kept in the dark, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not suggesting that, with all respect.

Mr. Smith: This is a joke.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps -- order.

Mr. Smith: There is an arrogance

Mr. Speaker: Order. Your point has been well made. The matter will be brought to the attention of those who have responsibility for producing this information. As I said before, it is impossible for me to rule on the adequacy of the information.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: Could we appeal to you as the Speaker responsible for carrying out the functions of this Legislature for a ruling which would seek to define and that would give guidance to government ministers as to just what a compendium of information ought to contain.

It is surely not enough in our opinion that you will bring our comments and opinions to the attention of the government ministers. They can read Hansard as well as anybody else. What is required, Mr. Speaker -- and what we look for from the presiding officer of this Legislature -- is an independent judgement as to what the rules mean or do not mean. Could we have that ruling from you in the near future, Mr. Speaker?

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I will be prepared to take a look at that but I want every member to understand that I am not privy to information.

Before we proceed, I would like to take the time to introduce to the members of this Legislature a very distinguished visitor who is sitting in the Speaker's Gallery. She is Madam Simone Veil, president of the European parliament, who has graced us with her presence here today.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SAFETY IN PROFESSIONAL BOXING

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, in May I reported to the Legislature the recommendations of the federal task force on boxing in Canada as well as several initiatives being undertaken by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I would like to outline the progress since that time.

Mr. Smith: You are going to buy 25 per cent of Sugar Ray Leonard.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, 25 per cent of you as a mud wrestler.

Hon. Mr. Walker: We will give you a compendium as well -- a complete pedigree.

By way of background, last year's tragic death of boxer Cleveland Denny and serious injuries to another boxer, Ralph Racine, led to the establishment of the federal task force. Six months later the task force made several recommendations. many of which are being implemented by my ministry.

First, Ontario boxers will be required to carry a passport-type licence which will show their fight and medical records. The licence will be surrendered before the fight and returned to the boxer after the fight results and medical examination have been entered. The only other jurisdiction in North America which uses this type of licence is the state of New York.

We realize this system can only be effective if it is implemented and in force in other jurisdictions, so we are taking it one step further. Since many boxers who fight in Ontario are from border states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, I have just written to the governors and boxing authorities of each of those states asking for their co-operation in setting up an effective record-keeping system. This way we can better ensure the information contained in the boxer's passport is up-to-date and accurate. This precaution, coupled with a computer check through our terminal to the New York state data bank system, should help prevent future tragedies. It is believed, for example, that unreported recent knockouts in other fights could have contributed to Mr. Denny's untimely death.

An important component of our efforts to make boxing safer in Ontario is to assist boxing officials and ringside physicians in becoming more knowledgeable about the medical hazards faced by boxers every time they step into the ring. To this end, I announced in May that instructional clinics would be developed by our Ontario Athletics Commissioner, Clyde Gray. The first in this series of medical clinics will be held in Toronto this Saturday. I think it is worth mentioning that it is the first of its kind in Canada.

The response to Mr. Gray's efforts has been overwhelming. We were anticipating about 80 people but nearly double that number have responded so far. This one-day seminar will be attended by top-notch referees, trainers, managers and boxing authorities from across Canada and the United States. About 15 Ontario doctors are also expected to attend. Dr. Bruce Stewart, a noted Toronto neurologist, former amateur boxer and our new medical director in the athletics commissioner's office, will be instructing doctors on how to examine a boxer before a fight and what to look for during the bout.

It should be pointed out that ringside doctors play a doubly important role as they now have the power to stop a fight at any time for medical reasons. In many jurisdictions a doctor can only stop a fight between rounds, perhaps too late to prevent serious injury to a boxer. Dr. Stewart will also be using video tapes of fights where boxers have been killed or seriously injured to illustrate when a doctor should intervene.

I would also like to extend my thanks to the honourable Gerald Regan, federal minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport, for contributing to the cost of our seminar.

While it may be impossible to eliminate death or serious injury in the ring, I am convinced my ministry is doing everything in its power to ensure that the risks to boxers who fight in this province are minimized. I believe this province is a demonstrated leader in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce the new athletics commissioner, Mr. Clyde Gray, who is sitting in the Speaker's Gallery, on the far side. Many will know Mr. Gray. Since becoming a professional boxer in 1968 he has had 78 professional fights and was ranked number one contender for the world championship three times between 1973 and 1977. Mr. Gray was appointed supervisor of boxing in 1980 and was promoted to athletics commissioner in October 1981.

Dr. Bruce Stewart, sitting beside Mr. Gray, now is with the Ontario Athletics Commission as medical director. He is chief of medicine at the Etobicoke General Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Toronto. He has been a ring physician with the commission since 1966 and has just been appointed medical director.

LAND-USE PLANS

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that last Thursday I tabled a document concerning a land-use plan for the West Patricia area of Ontario. Today, also as part of my ministry's extensive land-use planning program, I am tabling two boxes of recently-published material.

The first package contains background information documents for land-use plans in 23 of my ministry's 47 administrative districts. Additional material consists of a brochure about the land-use plan for Wawa district, a tabloid that presents an overview of land-use planning for the eastern administrative region and a set of general land-use planning guidelines.

The second package consists of mailing lists -- names and addresses of individuals, organizations and agencies to whom my staff routinely forward all published material pertaining to strategic land-use plans for the northwestern, north-central and northeastern regions of the province, the southern Ontario co-ordinated program strategy and the West Patricia land-use plan.

These extensive lists reflect the emphasis my ministry places on the public involvement phase of our strategic land-use planning program. As I said in my statement last week, I consider public participation an extremely important step in the planning process.

I regret that individual copies of this material are not yet available for the news media. However, copies are filed in the Natural Resources library and the public reading room in the Whitney Block. Also, in each district documents are made available to the local members of the Legislature and the press.

It is my intention to table additional land-use plan documents as they become available for the remaining districts. This will ensure that each and every member is fully aware of the scope and significance of this very important program.

PUBLIC OFFICERS ACT

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the Public Officers Act requires that, within the first 15 days of every session, I advise this assembly of all securities furnished on behalf of public officers and of any changes made to securities. Since my statement of May 5, 1981, there has been no change in either category.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PURCHASE OF JET

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources.

Ontario faces a very serious crisis in terms of our diminishing forest resources, which are falling behind in regeneration by at least 160,000 acres per year. Given that the minister would have been able to regenerate more than 100,000 more acres had he had an additional $10 million, does the minister sincerely feel that the purchase of a $10.6-million, 12-seat executive jet as a kind of status symbol for the Premier (Mr. Davis) was justified in these circumstances? Under what possible system of priorities could the minister have approved of that purchase when, instead, he could have improved the regeneration program to the tune of 100,000 acres?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition would get to that. If he had taken the time to study the information made available he would have seen that the aircraft will substantially improve access to virtually every airport in northern Ontario.

Mr. Breithaupt: How many can it land at?

Mr. Laughren: Are you planning to extend the runways?

Interjections.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Smith: I must confess, Mr. Speaker, I had difficulty hearing the answer. I think what he said was that it was better to buy a jet than to plant 100,000 acres of trees, because it would somehow speed up the access the Premier has to various parts of Ontario.

As a supplementary, may I ask the Minister of Natural Resources whether he bothered to check into the cost of renting jets for those rare occasions on which it is necessary for the Premier to get somewhere that quickly? Has he found, as we did when we checked into these costs, that simply for the cost of interest alone on the $10.6 million -- leaving out the cost of fuel, the cost of storage, the cost of pilots and maintenance -- the Premier could have rented the equivalent jet any time he needed it to travel anywhere in Ontario back and forth every day of every year from now on, and it would still have been cheaper than the cost of the interest alone? How can he justify buying this status symbol, this prize for having won a majority government, when in the minister's own department the forest regeneration program is lagging so badly?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, does the member want to hear the answer this time?

Mr. Riddell: Speak up, or are you embarrassed.

Hon. Mr. Pope: My friend should just listen. He should stop roaring like a bull and listen.

Mr. Riddell: Maybe you don't want us to hear.

Ms. Copps: Give him time to think.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question. The minister will reply.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Leader of the Opposition -- I think it was in a Global News interview -- made the same case the Friday after the announcement. I replied to him that if he took the cost of his limousine and equated it to the return fare for a cab to and from Hamilton, he could virtually come to and from Toronto every day as well. I did not notice the Leader of the Opposition doing anything about his limousine.

The truth of the matter is that the jet improves the access of this government to every airport in northern Ontario. The purchase of this jet did not come out of my budget, and therefore his little equation does not hold water at all, nor do his figures about regeneration efforts in this province. The areas available to be regenerated in this province include areas that still have some species of trees to be harvested on them. Almost 40 per cent of that regenerated area still contains poplar that has to be properly harvested before we get back on the regeneration.

The member should examine our efforts through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program; he should examine our efforts through direct expenditures on tree nurseries and acquisition of stock; he should look at what we are trying to do with the forest management agreement.

By the way, not one of the Liberal Party representatives showed up in Thunder Bay or Dorion to look at the details of that forest management agreement. They do not care about what is going on in northern Ontario. The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) was there, but not one of the Liberal caucus showed up.

Mr. Foulds: You just lost me another 10 delegates, Alan.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, will the minister be more specific in terms of what the government expects to get, and for whose benefit, in return for the equivalent of $6.000 a day of interest just to have that plane sitting on the ground out at Malton or at one of the private airports on the edge of town? Is he saying that for $6,000 a day there will be better service to the people of Ontario? Or is it that the government really wanted to have more quick trips in and out so that Conservative ministers could go on a ribbon-cutting rampage in northern Ontario as part of their means of trying to keep in power?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Now I know why the NDP's position is deteriorating in northern Ontario, Mr. Speaker. They are even against new projects and more ribbon cuttings up there, and we are in favour of them.

While we are playing this little word game and this little posturing game, let us go back a little in history and look at a select committee on tile drainage meeting in Quebec City in about 1976. At those little meetings one spokesman from each party got up to thank his hosts. The spokesman for the New Democratic Party stood up in 1976 and said: I want to thank you, government of Quebec, for your hospitality. You know how to do things correctly in this province. You have four jet planes, and it is time the government of Ontario bought a jet plane." That man was Bill Ferrier.

Mr. Breithaupt: That just shows he was wrong too.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Smith: Since the minister seems to be satisfied with his ministry's performance in the regeneration of trees, is he familiar with the recent federal study, dated September 30, 1981, which I hold in my hand and which says, "Shortages will become widespread in the 1980s unless forest renewal performance in Ontario improves dramatically"?

When he says this new status symbol for his Premier did not come from his budget, is he not aware that it was in one of his ministry's news release that the news was released and that the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman) said yesterday that it did not come out of his budget? Will any minister own up to whose budget this totally unnecessary toy has been purchased out of?

Hon. Mr. Pope: As usual, the Leader of the Opposition has interpreted my --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Does the Leader of the Opposition want to hear the answer?

Mr. Smith: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Okay. As usual, the Leader of the Opposition has interpreted my words the way he wants. I said there was no money allocated for the purchase of that aircraft out of the forestry budget or out of any other operating budget of my ministry. I said there was no transfer of funds from my budget to pay for the purchase of that plane, and the member knows exactly what I meant; so he should not play his word games with me.

The second point is that all the aircraft in the province of Ontario fall within my ministry. That is why I issued a press release. So the Leader of the Opposition should not say we are hiding on that either. Never mind his retroactive interpretations.

If the honourable member reads the federal study, it does say there is a Canada-wide problem in regeneration and reforestation programs --

Mr. Bradley: Particularly in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Not particularly in Ontario. I ask the honourable member to show me where that study says that. In fact, if there is a particular Canada-wide problem, we are part of it. But we have taken more steps than any other jurisdiction.

Ms. Copps: You certainly are part of the problem.

Hon. Mr. Pope: What would the member know about it? Did she go to Thunder Bay or Dorion to look at the forest management agreements? Or is she an instant expert on everything?

Ms. Copps: I went to Sudbury. I was talking with workers and owners of timber mills all the way up to and including Hearst.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Oh, she was in Sudbury. How many mills are in Sudbury? With her intimate knowledge of northern Ontario, let her tell me all about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, we are doing more in this jurisdiction in terms of direct government investment in nurseries, in planting trees, in forest management agreements than any other jurisdiction in Canada, and we should be proud of it and support it.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Smith: Ah, the promising young man is no longer promising. I must say, the jet is an incentive now to many northern ridings to shorten their runways so the Premier will not be able to land there.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a new question?

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer.

Given the recent unemployment figures, which show that for every five unemployed persons in Ontario in August a sixth person now has been added to that list in September, and given that the Treasurer usually likes to talk of having created new jobs in Ontario, is he aware of the comments of Mr. Richard Thomson, the chairman of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, who said, "Ontario outside of Toronto is in real trouble"? That is a direct quote. And is he aware of figures which indicate that outside of Toronto there actually has been a net loss of 14,000 jobs in the last year?

Given that situation, will the Treasurer tell us exactly what measures he intends to take, and has he been aware of this net loss of jobs outside the Metropolitan Toronto area?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is the job of the Leader of the Opposition always to paint the world as a gloomy, unpromising place; he did so all during the election campaign. The people of the province did not buy the story then, nor will they buy it now.

I have to say the fact is that in September we had an increase in the number of people employed in the province, in spite of the fact that the statistics, which currently have to be reviewed by the federal government, showed 62,000 more entrants or available people in the labour force that month. That is a month when students are considering going back to university, and they tell me it is the month of the year when the statistics are least reliable for the actual number of people available to work.

In spite of that relatively large group applying or saying they were available for work, we had an increase in employment in that month. We were at 129,000 more employed people in this province at the end of September than a year ago, and we only projected 106,000.

Mr. Smith: Given that there was an increase in the number of people employed in Ontario but that there was even a larger increase in the number employed in the Metro Toronto area, where, unfortunately, there was also a larger number of people eligible for employment at the same time, is the Treasurer not aware that outside of Metropolitan Toronto, not only was there a greater number of people looking for work but also there was an actual net loss of 14,000 jobs? That and other things led Mr. Thomson to say Ontario was in trouble outside of Toronto; as far as I know, he is not running for any election at this time.

Is the Treasurer further aware that last year's figures showed that in the same monthly period, when students were going to school and all that, unemployment moved in the opposite direction to that which happened now?

Given that the situation outside Metro is serious and that jobs are actually being lost outside Metro -- even if they are being created within Metro -- does the Treasurer not think the $650 million might have been better spent to revitalize Ontario's industries and make Ontario the place where the action is instead of sending that money to Alberta, which apparently now is the only place the government sees any action?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I did not think the money went to Alberta.

The fact remains that in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program we have created a blueprint for development that has been hailed around this province as attacking the really strategic problems, and it has been seen by other provinces as a very valid one. I am told it is being copied by the state of Michigan at this moment, because they too think it is a very good program.

I have to tell the honourable member that we are tackling the problem. Sure, there are months when one geographic area does better than another. I am intrigued to find the member quoting a person whom he really has not been supporting very much lately, a bank president.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it is now eight months since the BILD program was brought in to try to repair the ravages that were made in this economy by this government over the many years it has been in power. Is the minister not aware that the impression the government gave, the promise the government gave, was that this was going to bring down unemployment? What is happening now? Were they misleading the public back in January when the BILD program was announced? Is it not correct that people were bilked by BILD, because it was a cynical grab for power in January of this year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I suppose the party that saw its strength in this House decimated would think so, Mr. Speaker. The fact is, the people of this province did not think so.

Mr. Smith: As a serious supplementary question --

Hon. Mr. Henderson: That's something new for you.

Mr. Foulds: There's always a first time.

Mr. Cassidy: You really spread it around, don't you, Stuart?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Smith: Given the fact that our manufacturing sector is admittedly in some decline, given that even the Minister of Energy of Ontario (Mr. Welch) in responding to my question Tuesday, when I asked why he was investing in an Alberta oil company instead of an Ontario industry, said Alberta is where the action is, and given that some of us can remember when Ontario was where the action was, will the Treasurer not admit that the $650 million could have been much better used to create jobs here in Ontario by supporting Ontario industries instead of sending it out of the province where it will guarantee neither one additional barrel of oil nor one additional employed Ontarian?

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am pleased to hear the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) say he had all the money he needed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I just make a mental note that the allocation process is on this week. I hope some other colleagues will say the same thing.

The fact is, we have done many things to stimulate industry in this province. I find it difficult to follow the consistency of the Leader of the Opposition. One day he tells us not to intervene in the private sector, sounding like the most right-wing person in the country when he hammered us last year --

Mr. Smith: I never said that. It is a question of which private sector. How about ours instead of Alberta?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: He did so. He should go back and look at last year's Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition asked a specific question. Will the Treasurer please address that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, why is he not the butt of your comment? He is the one yelling from his seat. He is the one who is getting his high blood pressure up. He is the one who is going to have an apoplectic stroke. Really, I suffer for him.

Mr. T. P. Reid: No one looked sicker than you last week when we talked about your resignation on a matter of principle.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have just heard from the one Liberal from the north who cannot even run on a Liberal ticket. He has to call himself the Labour-Liberal member from the north.

Mr. T. P. Reid: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer knows as little about northern Ontario as he knows about buying Suncor. The Liberal-Labour tag goes back in history and tradition to the 1920s, and it is a banner I wear proudly. Besides, it drives them crazy at election time.

INTEREST RATES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like a page to take to the Treasurer a copy of the report that now has been made available in Ottawa with respect to the impact of high interest rates on the housing sector.

This report indicates that 30,000 to 40,000 households across Canada are going to be in a tragic situation as a result of the high interest rates and that the owners will be forced either to try to sell their homes, walk away from their homes and face foreclosure, or else to pay a huge proportion of their income to retain their homes. That means 15,000 families are facing that situation here in Ontario as a result of the high interest rates in the situation that exists in housing in this province now.

Does the minister not agree that it is time to have a real housing program to get affordable housing in Ontario? When will we see that from this government?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I suspect that question would best be directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), because that is his basic responsibility.

Mr. Mancini: He is not here.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I recognize he is not here. I have to tell the leader of the third party that this province has expressed its most serious concern to the federal government on the plight of these people. I did so when I attended the meeting of the ministers of finance in Ottawa in late September or early October. I expressed our concern that the federal government of this country has allowed to exist, through the Bank of Canada and through its own total fiscal irresponsibility, a state of affairs that has raised those interest rates and put people at jeopardy.

Mr. Cassidy: Given the evidence, again of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation report, indicating that tens and hundreds of thousands of other families are having to pay $300 to $350 a month more when they renew their mortgages, which indicates that families that bought homes in good faith in Toronto five years ago may now have to pay 49 per cent of their after-tax income to hang on to their homes, and given the Treasurer's own charge that the Bank of Canada is acting irresponsibly, then if the government thinks the Bank of Canada is acting irresponsibly, why does it not bring in measures in this province that will bring the Bank of Canada to bring the interest rates down?

Why does the Treasurer not begin by taxing the excess profits of the banks here in Ontario to get them on our side and on the side of people who are paying far too much in high interest rates?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Now I understand why the member left writing as a financial journalist to become the leader of the New Democratic Party, because things are not that simple. It really does require some co-operation from the federal government on a cross-Canada basis to solve this problem. The tax resources of this province simply cannot deal with the problem as easily the leader of the third party says.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, in 1975 the Treasurer's party gave first-time home owner grants and promised an interest rate subsidy program, thereby encouraging many people to buy homes. Now that those people are in their homes, why does the minister refuse to help them stay in their homes? Why does he wish to sit back and watch many hundreds and even thousands of families having to walk away from their homes?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I wish there were simple solutions, Mr. Speaker. I have looked into the problems, and I am sure the other members have also, of individuals faced with the horrendous problem of having their mortgage payments almost doubled. Assuming they have had their houses for five years, the problem may not be so grave in percentage of income. A lot of them have made those mortgage changes within the last year and, therefore, they predicated their 30 per cent or whatever factor it was on last year's salary to find it is 40, 42 or 43 per cent this year.

There are many people with these problems who have many other debts relating to consumer loans, and they have not had the time to adjust their cash flow to put their money where their first priority is: on their homes. I suggest we have to give them this time through some mechanism that will allow them to adjust their budgets so their houses remain theirs. I cannot think of anything more important for the average Canadian than to be able to hold on to the title to his home. Obviously I have encouraged the federal government to help us find ways, and I have pointed out that Ontario is willing to help.

Mr. Cassidy: Given that there were 15,000 families in this position, whom the minister himself admits will be paying 40 or 42 per cent -- this study indicates up to 49 per cent -- of their after-tax income just to hang on to their homes, what specific mechanism does the minister have in mind? And why is it, with this crisis brewing over the course of the last five months, there has not been one action taken by the government, not one word of legislation that would put such a mechanism in place to defend those 15,000 families? Surely they need help now. What is he going to do about them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think it has been generally accepted that the primary taxing power is at the federal level, and the monetary authority is all there. We have been arguing that the courses of action that have kept our rate at 20-plus per cent have not been because of the mismanagement of the Bank of Canada but because of mismanagement by the government of Canada, to which the Bank of Canada reports.

We have been very anxious. Every finance minister has discussed this problem with the federal government. We simply have to point out to them that we will be willing partners in any program. At the same time, there are a lot of people who, through many conscious decisions, kept their homes. Life is never simple. Some of those people say, "I have solved my problem, and I am not willing to pay the tax for somebody who has not."

ELECTION SPENDING

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Yesterday, I released to the press figures that indicated the Progressive Conservative Party spent $8 million to get re-elected in March 1981, between the central campaign, the riding campaigns and the local campaigns on behalf of the PC party. Since that was 80 per cent of what it took for the election campaigns of the federal Liberals and the federal Conservatives just over a year ago, does the Premier agree that spending by the Progressive Conservatives was excessive and represents an abuse of the democratic process in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the democratic process was affected. I never minimize the effect of programs during the course of an election campaign. I sometimes think we exaggerate the effect, whether it be commercials or whatever, in terms of how voters react. That is a personal point of view from my standpoint. My simple answer to the question would be no.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the fact that the Premier stands almost alone among a lot of observers across the province who do feel that the process is being abused, that, as I said, the amount of spending by the Conservatives was obscene in this campaign and that there should not be a democracy where one party is enabled to buy its way back to power because of the absence of any limits on election spending, will the Premier undertake now that before the 1985 election there will be limits put on the spending of the central campaigns by the parties and on the spending at the local constituency level here in Ontario which would be comparable with the present limits imposed on federal campaign spending under the Canada Elections Act?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the honourable member will observe that there are some very distinct differences between the two acts. One can argue the limitations on expenditures, but one can also argue the limitations, or lack of limitations, in respect of fund-raising.

In essence, the leader of the third party can apologize whatever way he wants to for his lack of success on March 19. I have news for him. He did not lose because he did not spend more money. He lost because he did not have the policies, he did not have the commitment and he could not persuade the people of Ontario that they wanted to support a Socialist government. It was as simple as that.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary; the member for Essex South.

Mr. Martel: Why do the Tories need the money if they're so good?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Essex South has the floor; the member for Sudbury East does not.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier if he is not personally embarrassed by the expenditures listed by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), who spent $90,000 more for his own campaign than was spent by the three candidates in the Essex South riding. Is the Premier not personally embarrassed that one of his cabinet colleagues had an expenditure list that could be compared and called obscene?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I can go over into another riding -- I think it is St. David, if memory serves me correctly -- and take a look at what the Liberal candidate spent there.

I am not embarrassed by any of my colleagues or any members on this side of the House. They won because we presented the best program, the best record and the best degree of confidence in terms of leadership in this province. That is why that election was won, and not because of any fund-raising or expenditures, which the third party leader may use to rationalize his own position at the moment.

Mr. Cassidy: If the Premier is convinced that his party won because of its program and its policies, why will he not agree to making the rules of the game fair as far as the question of money is concerned?

Does he not think it is an unhealthy situation when, for example, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) received donations to his campaign from Cantrakon and 45 other corporations that are linked to the real estate industry?

Does he not think it is unhealthy when developers contributed more than $110,000 to the campaigns of large numbers of Conservative cabinet ministers and candidates across the province?

And does he not think we will have a healthier situation if limits are put on campaign spending so all this corporate money is not sloshing around and meddling in politics?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is nothing in the legislation I know of to preclude people, in their judgement, making a contribution to the honourable member's party -- nothing whatsoever.

I suggest to the member that one of the problems with his party is that it has become so oriented to a single philosophy and support in this province; it is time he endeavoured to expand his base.

I have to tell him, there is nothing to preclude him from trying to get other people to monetarily support his party. He knows why they do not: They do not want to see it in government. It is as simple as that. I happen to share their point of view.

Mr. Speaker: A new question from the member for London Centre.

Mr. Peterson: The reality is that they both sold out: to the corporations and to the unions. We are the only honest party left. That was an aside, Mr. Speaker, and not a question.

3 p.m.

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Can we have the Treasurer's assurance that he will table in this House very soon the Price, Waterhouse and McLeod, Young, Weir studies of the Suncor purchase for scrutiny by this House?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would like to reply, Mr. Speaker, to the young millionaire from London who is running for the Liberal Party, because that is the way he was described in the press the other day. After that last glowing aside about the Liberal Party being the only honest party, I just had to put that in.

My answer is no, I can give no such assurance.

Mr. Peterson: Why should that be secret? There is absolutely no reason for that whatsoever, and it should have been part of the compendium.

My second question to the Treasurer is, how is this matter going to be debated before the House?

The Ontario Energy Corporation Act, section 18(1), says: "The Treasurer of Ontario, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council and upon such terms and conditions as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may prescribe, may make loans to the corporation and may acquire and hold as evidence thereof bonds, debentures, notes or other evidences," et cetera.

Section 2 goes on to say that "the moneys required for the purposes of subsection 1 shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund," which means in effect that this matter will not come before the Legislature by way of a bill.

Will the Treasurer give us his assurance that he will bring this matter into this House by way of legislation for a full public discussion of this purchase?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have never known the member, or any other member of the opposition, to be constrained by some simple technical fact from discussing those things he wishes to discuss in an estimates debate -- in my estimates or those of my colleague the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch).

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, can I ask the Treasurer why that information will not be available, since under the rules of the House he is required to provide this information? Second, will he also table the public opinion polls on which the government must have based its decision, because it does not do anything without them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker; it is simply that the public opinion polls always reflect that which we do. It is the other way round. When one is right all the time, the public opinion polls show it. We do not have that problem. We do not have to look at the polls until after the decisions are made.

I did not say it would not be submitted. I said I could not give the assurance that it would be submitted.

LUMBER COMPANY LAYOFFS

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources -- and it is not about the broken promise to build a food terminal in Timmins.

Does the minister condone the actions of Wesmak Lumber Company and Chapleau Lumber Company in the Chapleau area, considering that they have completed shutting down one town by bulldozing the homes to the ground and are waiting for snow before they set fire to them, and that they are in the process of laying off workers in another community and have already issued eviction notices of 30 days' length to some of the workers?

Does the minister believe that is the way lumber companies within his jurisdiction should be allowed to behave simply because the companies are in isolated communities and have unorganized workers in their employ?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I share the honourable member's concern about some of these people located in his riding. I understand the issue revolves around a merger that has been proposed. Incidentally, we have received no documentation yet with respect to that procedure, but we have been advised of it.

I understand there has been discussion since the fall of 1980 with respect to the bush and nonbush workers and their employment future. The honourable member is quite right when he says there have been some layoffs in the community. I am led to believe most of those are reflective of the general market problems now, with the high inventories building up. I do understand the company has notified the workers that as soon as the situation improves it will be going back to two shifts a day. At that point, almost all the workers will be back in.

With respect to Island Lake, which is the community of most concern to the honourable member, I believe there were indications given to some of the workers in the mill operation only -- not the bush workers -- that the mill would be discontinuing its operation. I understand there have been discussions since December 1980. Since the member raised this on Monday, we have been trying to obtain more information on the plans of the company and will communicate them to him and to the workers in those communities.

In addition, we will try to prevail upon the company to do as much as they can to continue to provide that accommodation for the present and former workers. I repeat, apparently there was some discussion about getting out of these residences as far back as last fall. However, if they are not going to be used and if the workers are prepared to pay for utilities and any other expenses with respect to the continued utilization of those homes, I see no reason why that situation cannot continue. I will do what I can on behalf of those workers and the honourable member to make that happen.

Mr. Laughren: Am I correct in my assumption that timber limits cannot be bought, sold or bartered in Ontario between lumber companies? If I am correct in that assumption, is the minister not concerned that this merger was simply a method of transferring or virtually selling the timber limits of Wesmak Lumber Company without Chapleau Lumber having to buy them, knowing full well that is simply not allowed? It is trafficking in timber licences. Is the minister not concerned about that? Will he look into the conditions under which that merger is occurring -- I do not believe it is completed yet -- and would he look into the possibility of withholding timber limits until he has assurances that the workers in those communities will be properly treated?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I will look at all those matters on behalf of the honourable member. I do not know how withholding timber limits will help any workers who are still working there. I understand there are 55 to 60 still working there and I do not know how that would help them.

I think the problem in a share purchase program or a share purchase acquisition is that there is no transfer required, whereas if there is a purchase of assets, transfer documentation is required. The member is quite right, there is to be no value attached to the licence. Obviously, in some instances, there is goodwill allocation and it is questionable whether that is or is not related to licences. I guess that is something about which there will continue to be some controversy.

I do not know how one could prevent those kinds of allocations being made. One could do the same thing perhaps in the allocation of the depreciated value of equipment or something like that to change it. How could legislation change that? If there is an allocation of purchase price to equipment or to any of the other assets of the company, even if one does not think it is proper, how could one put himself in that position? That is the problem we have.

Mr. Stokes: I would ask the minister if he agrees with the statement that all the sawmills in Hearst and Weldwood of Canada Limited in Longlac will be forced to close down within the next five years because of a lack of sawlogs to keep those sawmills and plywood mills going. If he does not agree with that statement, can he tell me where the sawlogs are going to come from?

Hon. Mr. Pope: No, I do not agree with the statement that all the sawmills in the Hearst area will close down in the next five years. In fact, historically a number of former ministers have made great efforts to try to accommodate the mills in the Hearst area. The previous member was quite actively involved in that. I think it is true a number of smaller operations in the Hearst area are under some competitive pressure. There is no denying that. What their future holds is something about which we can only speculate. However, there is no way that every mill in that community will close down because of a lack of wood supply. I think virtually every lumberman in the Hearst area will say the wood supply company --

Mr. Stokes: Where are the sawlogs going to come from?

Hon. Mr. Pope: They already have licences, do they not?

Mr. Stokes: No, they have volume agreements.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Right. And they are operating under third-party agreements and under direct licences.

Mr. Stokes: But it is from year to year.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Not from year to year, I am sorry. There has been a change. The renewals I have issued to most of the lumber companies in the province have been from one to two years for a number of reasons relating not to the availability of wood supply but rather to the future direction we want to take in terms of forest management agreements and arrangements with the companies so that we have more flexibility. But that is not indicative of any problem with respect to wood supply. Perhaps the honourable member is hearing some of that concern.

Historically we have looked after the Hearst operators. They have had wood supply. A lot of people in the ministry have been using third-party agreements and direct licensing in trying to accommodate their needs. We do not anticipate all the lumber mills in that community closing.

TORONTO EAST GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The Toronto East General and Orthopaedic Hospital asked him in January to remedy the terrible situation in its emergency department. His own Clark report of June 1981 confirmed the overcrowding in this emergency department, and on October 21 an inquest jury again cited this same problem and called for action following the unfortunate death of the 25-year-old Claire Moses. The facts are that the emergency department still books out of service more than once a week, according to Globe and Mail reports. Given these facts, what is the minister now doing and what does the minister propose to do about the overcrowding at Toronto East General? And what further tragedies will be necessary for him finally to act?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the member has to be reminded that even when an emergency department books off service it still receives and attends to life-threatening cases. The fact that an emergency department books out of service does not mean it turns away cases where a person's life is in danger. It receives them and attends to them and gives them the priority they deserve.

Also, I would remind the member that just in the last year or so we completed a major capital expansion at the Toronto East General. I would not want anybody to be left with the impression the East General has somehow been ignored. I think the expansion, which added beds and specialty departments, came to something in the order of $50 million. So they certainly have not been ignored.

Third, the Toronto East General has now submitted a proposal, I am told, to the health council for review and prioritization with respect to their emergency department. Depending on the availability of capital funds, I would hope to be able to give it priority in the next year or two.

Mr. Spensieri: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker:

In light of the same jury's recommendations regarding paramedics, and in view of the fact that the ambulance attendant was required in this case to make a quick judgement call as to the degree of seriousness of the patient's condition, how quickly can we now expect to see the upgrading of ambulance personnel to paramedic status? It has been proved it would result in benefits to recipients of emergency health care delivery.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker. I think within the month we should be putting the final touches on the curriculum for the advanced life-support program. This will allow us to begin to train advanced life-support personnel for the ambulance system in this province under the auspices of the Toronto Institute of Medical Technology starting in early 1982.

If the member would compare this province to any other jurisdiction in the country he would find we have the best-developed, most highly co-ordinated ambulance system of any jurisdiction in Canada. Indeed, most provinces to this day, including Quebec, still do not have a co-ordinated, government-funded ambulance system.

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr. McClellan: I have a new question for the same minister, Mr. Speaker. The minister will recall the brief submitted in December 1980 by a coalition that included the Medical Reform Group, the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded and the Canadian Mental Health Association, among other groups, expressing concern flowing out of the findings of the Alviani inquest.

I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he would review the medical files I am sending him now of a 26-year-old woman who has been a patient for chronic schizophrenia at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre since 1970. In particular I would ask the minister to review the massive doses of medication this woman has received over a prolonged period of time, specifically Moditen, Modecate and chlorpromazine dosages, which I believe to have been in excess of the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties' guidelines. Would the minister determine why it was necessary to maintain such high dosages of such dangerous drugs over so long a time despite the fact the patient had developed severe adverse reactions, according to my information, tardive dyskinesia, partial blindness, and measurable brain damage?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to take this information the honourable member is sending me, and to seek expert advice from my medical staff. I would point out to the member that in the thousands of cases that are under management on a daily basis in this province for whatever kind of malady -- psychological or physical -- physicians are called upon on a regular basis to make judgements about what is in the best interest of the patient.

With regard to the first part of the member's question, in the late spring I engaged a leading psychiatrist in the province, Dr. Heseltine, to become the executive director of mental health services in the ministry. One of the matters I specifically indicated to him, which I wanted his advice about and wanted him to look into, is the whole question of medication. There is no question that within the last 10 or 20 years the numbers and the uses for drugs have grown -- literally exponentially. We are in an age when some would argue people are receiving too much medication. Others would say that because of some of these new so-called wonder drugs in the last 10 or 20 years, people can now be in the community leading relatively normal lives as opposed to being institutionalized. There are strong arguments pro and con. Certainly, I would be happy to have expert medical advice in my ministry on this.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker: There is a statement in the brief I referred to a moment ago saying they were concerned not with anomalies but with "what is according to inquest testimony standard practice at Queen Street Mental Health Centre." Would the minister table Ministry of Health guidelines that govern the use of psychoactive drugs in provincial mental health centres? Will he undertake to conduct an independent inquiry, perhaps as part of the kind of public investigation that was asked for in December 1980 by a number of parties, into the incidence of chlorpromazine, phenothiazine, haloperidol and other such drugs being prescribed in excess of the safe level dosages recommended in the 1981 Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties in provincial mental health centres, and particularly at the Queen Street centre?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the member should not forget the compendium he refers to is not, and never was intended to be, a guide for hospitals and physicians. It is produced by the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association as a guide for pharmacists, but it was never intended to be an upper limit. I had some advance knowledge the member might well ask this question. I am told that in the case of one of the drugs, the compendium refers to possible doses even three times as much as some of the levels referred to, presumably, in what the member has just sent me.

Regarding one other part of the member's question about an inquiry, we had an inquiry into mental health services that went on for some considerable time. Its members travelled around the province under the chairmanship of Dr. Abbyann Lynch of St. Michael's College. I released this report about two years ago. As a result, a number of changes have already been made, including the fact I decided to reorganize the ministry's mental health services and engage Dr. Gilbert Heseltine from the University of Western Ontario as the executive director of mental health services. I have specifically indicated to him a number of areas of interest arising out of personal concerns as well as concerns highlighted by people like the honourable member, including the question of medication.

In regard to the other part, the member has a lengthy number of Order Paper questions, included in which is the same question. I will be dealing with that as soon as I can. I would point out to the member we are not going to be able to answer all those in 24 hours. It is going to take a long time.

3:20 p.m.

BROCKVILLE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I call the minister's attention to a letter I sent him on September 9 regarding an urgent matter of a 77-year old French-speaking patient at the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital. This patient cannot speak or understand English and Brockville Psychiatric Hospital does not offer French services.

Will the minister intervene and order the transfer of this patient to Centre Elizabeth Bruyère in Ottawa, which is the only French-speaking facility where this patient could possibly be kept? If not, could he make arrangements to transfer this patient to Montreal?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the honourable member's letter. I hope it arrived. It may well be that when it arrived, in order to cut down on any delay it was sent directly to the psychiatric hospitals branch for action. I will look into the matter. I take the question as notice.

Of course, a lot will depend upon the condition of the lady in question as to whether Centre Elizabeth Bruyère in Ottawa is a secure enough facility. I do not know anything about the lady's condition or whether she needs something more secure. But we will try to ensure that whatever is in the patient's best interest is done.

Mr. Boudria: I will have a page send a copy of the letter to the minister, a letter I sent to him a considerable time ago.

On the general topic of French-language services in psychiatric hospitals, I would ask the minister to recall the report on French-language services called, No Problem, Pas de Problème, by Dr. Jacques Dubois. This report made several recommendations with respect to French facilities in Ontario psychiatric hospitals, especially at Brockville. Will the minister tell us if he has acted or if he intends to act on any of those recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have acted. I would be glad to send the honourable member a copy of the statement I made at the Club Richelieu in Sudbury two years ago which definitively outlined the ministry's policies with respect to the provision of health services in this country's second official language. If the member would like some specific details on Brockville, I will be glad to get those and send them to him.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the roving Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In view of the skyrocketing price of gasoline, can the minister tell the House if he is satisfied the best interests of the motoring public in Ontario are being served by the practice of oil companies and lessees advertising only regular prices at service stations and no other major grade of fuel being sold at those service stations?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I think it is the kind of thing that could be drawn to the attention of the federal government. It might be more appropriately registered there. On the other hand it has been traditional in the past that only one form or grade of gasoline be advertised. That has traditionally been the lowest grade.

There was a time 15 or 20 years ago, when I used to be a gas jockey, when there were only two grades. It was very easy and they simply --

Mr. Martel: You are still a jockey.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I am a man of many talents, that is all. Some of us have to know what to do at the end of a nozzle.

Mr. Smith: You stuck it to us then and you stick it to us now.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I am not going to touch that. I can say that back then it was easy to have the two grades registered because it was very simple. They were often only a few pennies apart. Now when there often are so many grades at a service station and various prices that can be attached to it, plus the fact people are still trying to figure out what litres mean, I think it is probably normal that we would only have the cost of one grade there. However, the member has raised a point and I will be glad to take a look at it.

Mr. Samis: Most new cars today use unleaded or premium grades of fuel, and the states of California, New Hampshire and New York have made it mandatory, either through legislation or the process of regulation, for service stations to advertise either on the street or with a sign on top of the gas pump. In view of this, would the minister not consider it advisable to talk to the oil companies, due to the changing nature of the automotive business, with a view to giving consumers a better break in terms of pricing and advertising?

Hon. Mr. Walker: There are still a good many vehicles in this country that make use of normal gasoline. Certainly the Chrysler cars fall into that category. It is very difficult to tell the service stations what they should be doing in their pricing patterns. It has been traditional that the lowest price has always been registered. Of course with the changes happening so frequently today, it is almost impossible to keep track of what is happening. It seems that gas prices are being adjusted almost on a weekly basis.

ASSISTANCE TO BEEF PRODUCERS

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. On Monday the minister mentioned the assistance the government gave the feedlot operator and the feeder operator. The minister knows there are three factions to the beef industry, starting with the cow-calf operation, then the feeder and then the finisher or feedlot operator. As he mentioned, the last two of these have received assistance.

Can he tell me why the cow-calf man has not received anything as yet? Does the minister feel he is not just as important as the other two factions of the beef industry? He is definitely hurting just as badly as the other two. Can the minister tell me when he is going to announce some assistance for them?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the honourable member, I think he is fully aware of the beef program -- $40 for beef that has gone to market and $20 for each feeder. He is aware that program is costing us approximately $40 million.

The honourable member brings in the cow-calf program. Yes, we are well aware they have been left out of the program. The member could tell us the price of calves in Ontario. This year it looks as if it will be slightly under 75 cents a pound. He might tell me 60 cents, he might tell me 65 cents, but we find it is under 75 cents. Last year, the price was 81 or 82 cents a pound.

I think the honourable member would agree the cow-calf operators were not suffering until this year. We know two years ago the price was 90 cents and three years ago it was over $1 a pound, but it was the beef and the stocker man who was suffering earlier this year.

The first request I had from the Ontario Cattlemen's Association was for the beef program, which we initiated and announced. They then came back to me and asked for the feeder program, which we have put into effect.

I met with the federal minister a week ago last Friday and asked him what would be the response of the government of Canada if I happened to give consideration -- with no promises -- to a grant to the cow-calf people. For the feeder and the beef program I based it on the 1980 cattle so that any federal money that comes through would not be deducted. He told me if a plan from Ontario should supply money to these calves, if he had a plan in effect when they come to market, there would have to be deductions made at that stage. He pointed out to me it might be two or three years down the way but the onus would be put on the farmer.

We have the problem in Ontario that if we give money to the farmer under this program -- the problem we ran up against with the sow-weaner program that was later corrected -- and then have it taken away by the federal government, I think the member would have a hard job supporting that. We are still looking at the situation with this problem facing us.

3:30 p.m.

PETITION

HIGHWAY 527

Mr. Foulds: I have a petition signed by 200 residents of northwestern Ontario, and I believe it is self-explanatory.

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: that Highway 527 be considerably improved between mileage 30 and mileage 72; that the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly give prime consideration to completing the work necessary in order to pave the remaining portion of the highway that remains unpaved. At present, the calcium chip seal and grading treatment on this stretch of highway is unsatisfactory.

"We, therefore, beg to remind the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly that if a vehicle was in as bad condition as is this highway, the laws of this province would prevent such a vehicle from operating on the province's highways. We therefore ask for justice in the improvement of Highway 527."

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Treleaven from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting Kleven Brothers Limited;

Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the Society of Management Accountants of Ontario.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr27, An Act to revive Candore Explorations Limited.

Report adopted.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Government Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

Ministry administration program, $3,615,000; provision of accommodation program, $62,974,000; real property program, $8,550,000; upkeep of accommodation program, $52,384,000; supply and services program, $7,966,000; and communication and computer services program, $179,000.

And resolved:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Provincial Auditor be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

Administration of the Audit Act and statutory audit programs, $2,834,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Ms. Fish, on behalf of Mr. Shymko from the standing committee on social development, reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

University support program, $843,943,000; college and adult educational support program, $399,064,000; and student affairs program, $102,084,000.

And resolved:

That supply in the following supplementary amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982:

College and adult education support program, $4,550,000.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

Mrs. Scrivener moved, on behalf of Mr. Kennedy, seconded by Mr. Watson, first reading of Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Motion agreed to.

BURFORD LIONS' CLUB ACT

Mr. Ruston moved, on behalf of Mr. Nixon, seconded by Mr. McKessock, first reading of Bill Pr15, An Act to revive the Burford Lions' Club.

Motion agreed to.

HOMES FOR ABUSED SPOUSES ACT

Mr. Peterson moved, seconded by Mr. Mancini, first reading of Bill 152, Homes for Abused Spouses Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to provide for the ongoing funding and establishment of interval and transition houses for abused spouses. It would apply a $15 surcharge on every marriage licence inside the province of Ontario.

Last year there were about 67,000 marriages in the province of Ontario; so this would provide about $1 million that would go directly to an apparatus set up under this bill to provide establishment and ongoing funding for homes for abused spouses.

Members will be aware that a number of these houses in this province are in very serious financial trouble. This, of course, is not the total solution to their funding problems, but it would provide a steady and ongoing source of funds. I think it is a most reasonable proposition -- in fact, quite a modest proposal -- to assist in guaranteeing some continuity.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would just like to indicate to the House that there is a slight change from what is printed on the Order Paper for 8 o'clock this evening. The thirty-fifth order, which is the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the first report of the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments, will be called before the thirty-fourth order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. G. I. Miller moved resolution 9:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government recognize that economic pressures are forcing many farmers in this province out of the agriculture industry and that the government take immediate steps to set up short- and long-term financial programs so that the agriculture industry will grow and prosper and compete equitably with agricultural financial assistance programs in other provinces and give our young farmers an opportunity to get back to farming.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to bring forward this resolution and encourage this government to play a stronger role in the welfare of our agricultural industry, the most important industry we have. It is important not only to rural people but to urban people too, because they provide jobs through the industries. I think Massey-Ferguson Limited is a good example; when it closed down, it showed how it can affect an urban area. We want to make those points clearly today.

I am sure every member of this House is well aware of the seriousness of the financial difficulties that are forcing many farmers in Ontario to abandon the agricultural industry. If there is to be any hope at all that the deterioration of an industry that has been the backbone of Ontario for generations will be arrested, governments at every level must take immediate steps to set up programs to assist farmers in this time of crisis. The prosperity and competitiveness of our agricultural industry are essential to the future of this province.

I realize that all segments of Ontario society are feeling the impact of current inflation and high interest rates. Nevertheless, although private individuals and the business community in general are experiencing serious difficulties at this time, we must all be particularly concerned about Ontario's agricultural industry. There can be little question that a thriving agricultural industry is vitally important not only to the health of our economy but also to the health of our people, for, whatever else may change, quality food will always be a necessity of life.

Many of our farmers find their very livelihood threatened by the high interest rates that apply at present. These interest rates, combined with the rising price of farm equipment, fuel and other operational costs, are making farming a very risky occupation indeed. The task force that is going around the province was in Ancaster on Monday of this week, and I might indicate that there were 19 presentations, all pointing out the dire straits that many farmers and machinery dealers are in.

A recent report, The Future of the Family Farm in Ontario, found that the main area of concern to farmers was the high cost of production. In fact, 90 per cent of the farmers surveyed expressed this as their main concern, and the report concluded that the low financial return from farming was a major threat to the future of the family farm in this province. I might point out too that corn, which was selling for $4 a bushel, is now down as low as $2.80, and that is going to be another tremendous burden on the farmers now harvesting this year's crop.

For a very long time now farmers have struggled to gain economic and social stability, and many farmers have obtained income security only upon retirement after they have sold their holdings. Economic pressures have forced literally thousands of farmers to leave farming, and many thousands more have had to supplement their farm income with off-farm employment, at least on a part-time basis.

Income stability is more important today than ever before because of price uncertainty. Farmers cannot be expected to continue to invest in new machinery, buy more land and sustain all the other production costs in an effort to increase production unless and until they receive some guarantee and assurance that increased production will not lead to short-term surpluses, which ruin prices and force them into bankruptcy.

The fact that the future of the family farm is in jeopardy is dramatically underlined by recent figures on farm bankruptcies in this province. In 1979, Ontario had some 64 bankruptcies out of Canada's total of 124. By 1980, the figure for Ontario had jumped to 122 out of a total of 220 in Canada.

Only the other night in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates the deputy minister indicated that you can multiply those bankruptcies by 10 and perhaps be fairly close to the numbers who are abandoning their farms or leaving farming. That indicates the multiplying effect it has.

It is interesting, and depressing, to compare bankruptcy figures for Ontario with those of Quebec. That province had 43 bankruptcies in 1980, compared with Ontario's 122. Between January and September of 1981, Ontario had 112 bankruptcies, compared with 35 in Quebec.

While the situation with respect to bankruptcies is very serious, it tells only part of the story, of course. It does not give any indication of the number of farmers who are struggling to avoid going under or who have been forced to sell rather than lose everything they own in their vain battle against forces beyond their control.

The strange fact is that real growth in Ontario's agricultural industry has increased more rapidly than has been the case in other Canadian provinces. However, while more money passes through the hands of our farmers, less stays with them in the form of net income.

Recently, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture presented its annual brief to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and cabinet. In this brief the federation stated that it has been aware for some time that the government of Quebec provides farmers with a more varied and generous financial support program than that provided to the farmers of Ontario.

We are not trying to compete with Quebec; we would just like to be equal. We are not saying Quebec farmers should not have those programs; we are just saying we have to recognize the needs of Ontario farmers in our agricultural industry.

The brief continued:

"In Ontario, we have the natural advantage of better soil and climate. Ontario farmers are as well, if not better, trained and skilled in their craft as Quebec farmers. The question then arises, why in 1980 did Quebec farmers have an increase in realized net income of approximately 2.3 per cent, while Ontario farmers had a decrease in realized net income of 23 per cent?"

Before I continue with the comparison of the situation of the Ontario farmers and their fellows in Quebec, I want to point out that Ontario is the only province in Canada, other than Prince Edward Island, without some kind of interest subsidy program -- and even Prince Edward Island provides grants to its farmers.

However, the direct contrast between this province and Quebec is particularly dramatic. Little wonder that Ontario farmers are envious of their counterparts in Quebec who have access to a generous provincial farm loan program. The interest rates on Quebec farm loans are determined by government regulation. However, the rates are attractive to lending institutions in much the same way as the interest subsidies are attractive to farmers of the province.

Under the Quebec program, interest subsidies are primarily concentrated on long-term financing in the form of mortgage loans and chattel mortgages. Under the scheme, farmers are able to borrow up to $250,000 as individuals and $450,000 as groups, for a period of 15 to 20 years. Interest rates on these long-term loans fluctuate, and they are set twice a year at the prevailing prime rate plus one half per cent.

However, subsidies are sent to farmers which reduce the rate of interest on the first $15,000 to 2.5 per cent a year. On the next $135,000 of the long-term loan to the individual farmer and on the next $185,000 of a loan to a group, subsidies reduce the interest rate to something like eight per cent annually. In this way, individual farmers can borrow up to $150,000 at a comparatively low interest rate, while groups of farmers can borrow up to $200,000 at low rates, although they must pay the prime rate plus one half per cent on the balance of the loan.

Quebec farmers who have mortgages from the federal Farm Credit Corporation can receive provincial subsidies which reduce the interest rate on the first $15,000 of such federal loans to 2.5 per cent annually.

Ontario's Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has himself admitted to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture that Quebec has a richer farm support program than this province. I think we have pointed that out to him many times. He stated, however, that one important reason is that Quebec receives $1.8 billion in federal equalization payments, while Ontario has to pay out $1.5 billion.

My colleague the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) has already raised this matter in the House and has questioned the Treasurer's figures. It is his understanding that figures on federal agricultural expenditures show that, in 1979-80, Ontario received $263 million, compared with Quebec's $200.5 million, and that, according to a federal survey of all provinces for the 1980-81 fiscal year, Ontario received the greatest amount of federal agricultural dollars, $335.8 million, compared with Quebec's $210.6 million. However, on the provincial level, Ontario agriculture received $182 million, while Quebec's agriculture received $367 million.

3:50 p.m.

It is interesting to compare provincial expenditures on agriculture as a segment of the total provincial budget. In Ontario, in 1980-81, expenditures on agriculture were forecast at $184 million, or one per cent of the total budgetary expenditures of $16.8 billion. In Quebec, the agricultural budget was $370 million, or 1.84 per cent of its total budget expenditures.

One can see they take agriculture seriously in Quebec, while in Ontario I do not think they are really too concerned; they leave it to so-called free enterprise.

Often, when times are difficult, it is possible for farmers to survive through a crisis by working a little harder or by improving their operating techniques or equipment in some way. However, inflation and current high interest rates have produced a situation in which our most effective and efficient farmers, those people who have tried the hardest and who have been willing to undertake the necessary investment risks to increase their production and productivity, are the people who are most seriously threatened, because the burden of their loan payments has become overwhelming as a result of interest rates that hover above the 20 per cent level.

Farmers have done their very best to follow the advice of the provincial government and the banks. Those who have tried to improve their farming operations by following the most up-to-date methods of cultivation and farm management find themselves on the brink of bankruptcy as their operating costs outstrip farm cash receipts.

In other words, Ontario's best and most productive farmers, those who have tried their utmost to improve their operations, are suffering greater hardships than less efficient or less ambitious farmers who have smaller debts, less training and more flexibility in their production choices.

Unless something is done, and done quickly, to change present trends, we may find ourselves with an agricultural industry that is in the hands of less efficient farmers as our most up-to-date and efficient farmers leave the business, to be replaced by small-scale, labour-intensive agricultural operations. If that happens, inevitably food prices will rise and quite possibly food quality will suffer.

I brought this resolution forward because of my concern for Ontario's agricultural industry in general and my desire to represent to the best of my ability the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk in particular. Agriculture is very important to my riding. More than 90 per cent of the South Cayuga area, for example, is prime agricultural land. Heat units in the region are the second highest in Canada.

The members may be interested to know that, since the first historical records, the township of South Cayuga has been recognized for its agricultural potential. While the township contains only about 13,500 acres of land, its soil for centuries has been renowned for its richness.

I believe it is absolutely essential that we strengthen our rural communities by preserving our prime agricultural land, keeping it in production and making every effort to encourage our young people to remain in the smaller communities rather than gravitating to the large urban areas. This cannot be done unless governments recognize and attempt to deal with the basic reasons why our agricultural land is going out of production at such an alarming rate. That is why I have proposed this resolution.

I am calling upon the government to recognize the economic pressures that are forcing many farmers in this province out of the agricultural industry, and urging the government to take immediate steps to set up short-and long-term financial programs so that the agricultural industry will grow and prosper and compete equitably with agricultural financial assistance programs in other provinces.

I might add that across the border in the United States, I understand that money is made available to many areas in the area of nine per cent; and they have good agricultural programs. This is what we are competing with.

We must give our young farmers an opportunity to get back into farming. I might point out to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) that I suppose the average age of farmers in Ontario would be well into the fifties. Our young farmers who are graduating from agricultural schools want an opportunity to get their hands on operating farms. We should be encouraging that so we can provide employment for our young people and give them a share of the action in Ontario.

While such a resolution may appear to deal only with the needs of one sector of society, surely everyone will realize that any measures that will assist the agricultural industry in a meaningful way inevitably also would have a beneficial effect on the consumer market. Obviously, if the agriculture industry of the province is maintained at a successful level, more food will be produced for the domestic market, which will reduce the necessity of importing food supplies on a large scale.

I might point out that we import more than we export, and that is the wrong direction for us to be going, particularly in a part of Canada where we have so much potential. For those reasons, we are trying to encourage the government to be more generous and to assist an industry which would be so beneficial to everybody in Ontario and Canada.

How much time do I have left?

The Acting Speaker Mr. Cousens): You have four minutes remaining.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I would like to reserve that for summing up.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the objective and the content of this resolution are worthy of support, and we shall support them. The timing of its coming forward for debate in the House is a little unfortunate in that we have just been thrashing through this very issue for hours in the estimates. However, it may be useful that we should focus on it once again here, because I have had no impression that we have really broken through the insensitivity and the lethargy of the government in a way that would cause them to come forward with some sort of a program. With the minister and the distinguished graduate from the University of Guelph, that expert in agriculture at his side, listening, perhaps the two of them will be able to focus in and get some action.

Ralph Barrie, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, has pointed out that in every year during the last decade there have been about 1,000 farmers who have left agriculture in the province. He and some others have engaged in speculation as to what is likely to be the figure of people leaving agriculture today in view of the problems. Figures as high as 5,000 have been cited. I suppose nobody will know until we get through this period and we have some actual statistics, but there is no doubt that it is serious.

Usually, as the honourable member who has just taken his seat has done, we point to bankruptcy as being the indication of the problem the farmers face. For a moment I want to indicate how, while bankruptcies may be the tip of the iceberg, this really gives no indication of the measure of the crisis out there.

As has been pointed out, there were some 122 bankruptcies in Ontario throughout 1980. It is up another 19 per cent so far this year. Farm bankruptcies grew by 90 per cent in 1980 and another 19 per cent this year.

However, the point we have to take note of, again as Ralph Barrie has pointed out, is that for every farmer who is bankrupt, there may be 10 farmers who have held a forced sale to get whatever reasonable return they can on their equity before it totally disappears. People who are more knowledgeable on a daily basis than myself of the exact situation in the rural areas tell me that there are maybe another 10 farmers who are resisting holding a forced sale because of the fact that prices today are low and if they sell now they are not going to get a "reasonable return on their equity" before they get out of the industry.

There is another aspect of it. We all start this calculation with the bankruptcy figures, and then we multiply it by the number of people who are holding forced sales, or resisting forced sales and hanging on by the skin of their teeth, so to speak. But there is another aspect of it which I was not aware of until a few days ago when we discussed it in the estimates. That is, these figures on bankruptcies are again only a tip of the iceberg of those who have gone into receivership.

These statistics from Statistics Canada are statistics of farm bankruptcies only in those instances where they have been taken into court. My information is that there are an even greater number, how much greater I do not know, of what one might call privately arranged receiverships that do not get recorded but that are tantamount to a farmer getting out, bailing out with whatever he can get out of his remaining equity.

4 p.m.

In short, it is a very serious situation. The more I try to wrestle with what might be the solutions to this situation, the more I am puzzled by the difficulty in coming to grips with just how great the proportions of the crisis are. We have endless arguments going on these days between the spokesmen for the farm circles on one hand and the spokesmen, for example, of the banks on the other hand and the government tending to chime in with them. The farmers say it is very serious, and the others say only one per cent of the farmers really have a problem.

That brings me to this independent survey, which is at a verbal stage; and, as I quipped the other day, a verbal report on an independent survey is not worth the paper it is written on. What has happened, so we have discovered, is that the minister -- and this really must be a spectacle to see -- is in dialogue with the Minister of Agriculture from Ottawa. Just imagine the two of them sitting down and airing a dialogue on the problems of agriculture.

The two ministers had a dialogue a week or so ago. Out of it there came, apparently, the need to impress upon Gene Whelan that there is a serious problem. He does not happen to have the facts himself; so the minister instructed his deputy, who is a hard-hitting, knock-heads-together gentleman, and this man is now surveying the banks and the liquidation companies to find out exactly how bad the situation is. He has come up with a verbal report to the minister, and the minister has passed it on to us, suggesting there are no more than about 950 farmers in trouble.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: One per cent.

Mr. MacDonald: One per cent. Okay; 950 is roughly one per cent of the number of farmers who are in trouble, which is roughly 10 times those who happen to be in bankruptcy. I do not know how long this independent survey will go on. I am not sure what will come out of it. From what we have heard so far, the minister has come to the tentative conclusion, and I suspect it will be the definitive conclusion, that the proportions of the problem are not very great: only one per cent of the farmers are in trouble. However -- and this is the amazing thing about it -- even if he came up with the evidence that it was a serious problem, that is not why he is seeking the evidence. He is seeking the evidence, not to get action here in Ontario, heaven help us, but to put a little heat under Gene Whelan to take action up in Ottawa. In other words, he is, once again, trying to get the feds to do the job.

I agree with the minister that, as far as interest rates are concerned, the problem originates in Ottawa. So when we agree on it, let us not continue to repeat this ad nauseam. But what I follow through with and insist on is that, if that problem is creating serious difficulties for Ontario farmers, there is an obligation on the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the government, which was willing to do a lot of things when it was seeking the farmers' votes, to go out and at least ease the pain somewhat. That is what it is not doing.

As has been pointed out by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller), Ontario is the only province, other than Prince Edward Island, that provides no subsidies on the burdensome level of interest rates today. In Prince Edward Island, they have grants instead of subsidies; so Ontario is the only province that is doing virtually nothing in this field -- in fact, let me take out the word "virtually" and say it is doing nothing in this field.

Mr. Pollock: We spent $45 million on beef supplement.

Mr. MacDonald: I am talking about subsidies on interest rates. The member should wake up at the right time after he has heard what I said. There is nothing on subsidies on interest rates. The net effect of this -- and one can argue on the details and get buried in the details; this is again something I put into the estimates --

Interjections.

Mr. MacDonald: Is somebody disturbed over there? There are so few of them over there to get disturbed. They will have to magnify their disturbance to make any impact anywhere.

However, the point I want to draw to members' attention is not only what the government is not doing now, it is what the government has not done for years. It is magnificently illustrated in the statistics from Farm Credit in the Canadian Financial System, a document of relatively recent date put out by the Farm Credit Corporation. I have forgotten the exact date; I suppose if I took the time I could find it. It is another glossy publication.

The Acting Speaker: One minute.

Mr. MacDonald: This is the clincher to show how this government has done nothing. They have been offered a lot of programs by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. They have done nothing in the past; they have done nothing now.

Here is the situation -- and I will take two or three provinces to illustrate my point: The amount of outstanding credit to farmers in Quebec is $891 million, for an average of $17,312 per farm in outstanding credit extended by the province; in Nova Scotia there is $68 million outstanding from the provincial government, for an average of $11,724 per farm; in New Brunswick there is $34 million out in credit, for an average of $9,189. And so it goes, province after province. I do not have time to give them all to the members, but let me give Ontario's.

The Acting Speaker: Honourable member, your time has expired.

Mr. MacDonald: Thirty seconds, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: I gave you notice.

Mr. MacDonald: May I finish my sentence?

The Acting Speaker: No, you may not. I gave you one minute. One sentence can go on.

Mr. MacDonald: No, it will not go on.

One thousand one hundred and ninety-nine dollars as compared to $17,000 -- that is Ontario.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are a bit of a tyrant, but I respect you.

Mr. Watson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this resolution presented by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller). I do not know whether he is very clever or why he worded the resolution the way he did, but he did leave the gate wide open. I realize when he refers to the government in the subject of the resolution he must be referring to the government of Canada. Most of the things he describes in there are certainly the responsibility of the government of Canada, and I think perhaps he realizes it.

Interjections.

Mr. Watson: It is the Liberal government in Ottawa that is responsible for the economic conditions we have.

Mr. G. I. Miller: A typical government response.

Mr. Watson: The member for Haldimand-Norfolk moved that "the government recognize" -- and I know when he got up he started to say the government of Ontario. I do not know whether he says that when he goes home or not, but certainly most of the subjects included here concern the government in Ottawa, as I will outline.

Let us look at the national economy, which the member's federal friends have given us. We have chronic inflation and high interest rates right across the country.

It seems years and years ago, but really it was less than five years ago, in 1977, that the prime rate in the country was just over eight per cent. I think members will agree it was nearly three times that 1977 rate this summer. There might have been a small excuse for these rates had we succeeded in bringing down the inflation rate but they did no such thing. Inflation has just kept going hand in hand with interest rates: eight per cent in 1977, 10 per cent last year, heading for what? Thirteen per cent next year? It is anybody's guess.

Interjections.

Mr. Watson: On second thought, we have one thing to be thankful for: inflation has not kept pace with interest rates or we would be looking at more than 20 per cent inflation.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I am having problems with the interjections.

I think the only way we are going to get a handle on things in this province -- and not only agriculture -- is through fiscal restraint. We have been practising it for some time, and I would say it has been working in this province. As a percentage of the gross provincial product, the provincial deficit is going down. It was 2.2 per cent in 1977 and it is 0.8 per cent now. By comparison, the federal debt represented 4.4 per cent of the gross national product in 1977 and it is still at that level. Again, I suppose we can be thankful for small mercies, that it has not gone up, at least in percentage of the GNP; as a lump sum it is certainly going up.

4:10 p.m.

If we compare the deficit to revenues, which is what most people have to do, in Ontario the deficit is just under nine per cent of provincial revenues. At the federal level, it is a whopping $13 billion deficit and that is more than 25 per cent of revenues. No wonder they do not have any money for the Farm Credit Corporation. They are up to their necks supporting the national debt. Perhaps I should say they are up to our necks supporting the national debt.

I would like to remind this House of some of the points the Premier (Mr. Davis) made at the Premiers' conference last August. He said, and I am paraphrasing, anti-inflation strategy must promote employment and economic growth by increasing productivity. We cannot indulge in a short-run strategy using increased unemployment which will result in reduced investment or reduced agricultural output. It will only make matters worse in the long run. He also said the fight against inflation must not be borne by the unlucky few. From the direction things have taken since then, I do not think the federal people have been listening; I do not think they heard a word in Ottawa.

I would like to take a minute here to say a few words about some of these other provincial programs that have been mentioned. If we look behind the hype, some interesting facts start to emerge. Just before the last provincial election in Quebec, for example, a whole lot of glossy stuff was printed about the agricultural programs. Now the election is over and that capital program is out of funds. The 21 cents per foot for drainage is no more. In fact, in Quebec one will find they are getting out of the loan business and going the same route that Ontario has been using for some time -- that is, the interest subsidies like those for the drainage program, loan guarantees and other programs.

As a former agricultural representative in this province I can tell this House that programs like that worked and are acceptable to the farmers of this province. They are not straight giveaways, but farmers really do not want straight giveaways anyway. They have only put a floor under farmers at critical moments. The fact remains that over the long term it is the federal government that has to fix the economy. No province, not even Alberta, can keep defending its economy against the fiscal antics of the federal Liberals.

I think all of us in this House have certain sympathies with the content of the resolution presented by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk. We in the government recognize there are economic pressures. I am kind of pleased the member did not state which government, because it is certainly the government of Canada that the member should send this off to. It is they who have to pay attention to the subject presented.

Mr. Ruston: You should be ashamed that you got up and made remarks like that. I am glad you have left. The people of Kent county must be very happy.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Huron-Middlesex has the floor.

Mr. Ruston: You ought to be ashamed of yourself. I will send your speech back to Kent county.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I am more than a little disturbed that the minister and the parliamentary assistant sat and carried on a private conversation during the last three speeches that have been made on this most important resolution.

Then I listened to the last speaker and I simply cannot believe he would make some of the comments he made. He obviously does not take very seriously the crisis situation in Ontario in the farming industry. If it is entirely under federal jurisdiction I would like him to tell why there are very few farmers in the other provinces who have gone bankrupt compared with the number in Ontario. Why are the farmers in the other provinces not going bankrupt? If he can answer that question he had better stand up and take back some of the things he just said.

Mr. Speaker, I went into Hanover yesterday morning to present a brief to the task force established by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to look into the crisis situation we have here in Ontario in the farming industry. I sat the whole day listening to briefs presented by county federations of agriculture, by cattlemen's associations, by the Ontario Retail Farm Equipment Dealer's Association and by realtors. It would astound one to hear the sad story they had to tell yesterday.

When the committee asked a county federation what percentage of farmers they felt had gone bankrupt or were forced to sell before they went bankrupt, they said 20 per cent and they said that was a conservative estimate.

Then a realtor informed the committee he would venture the guess the figure was closer to 40 per cent. He said: "I will give you an example. I handle real estate in part of Grey, Bruce and Huron counties. I have 10,000 acres listed now. I could pick up another 10,000 acres at the snap of my fingers. I would dearly love it if the committee would jump in the car and come with me. I will take them for a drive between Chesley and Paisley, an eight-mile stretch of road, and show them 2,000 acres of land with a for-sale sign at every gate and no buyers."

If this is under federal jurisdiction, why is it we are not getting that same kind of report from every other province? It is because every other province has taken the responsibility to see its farming industry remains viable. They have all implemented low interest relief programs for their farmers because they realize the importance of the farming industry in their provinces. Why does this government not realize the importance of the farming industry? Do they realize that Ontario's agriculture is worth about 54.4 billion annually?

About one third of Canada's agricultural output comes from Ontario. The value added in this province by Ontario farmers is greater than any other primary industry, including mining, and ahead of any single manufacturing industry. Twenty per cent of our population work with jobs connected with the food and the agricultural industry. Agriculture ranks as the top primary goods producing industry in this province.

When we consider that only four per cent of our people are farmers we see how tremendous a contribution they make. Believe me, they have made it with very little government help in this province. Now they need assistance similar to that for other industries such as the auto industry and the pulp and paper industry. One can name them -- any industries the government has endeavoured to help. But when it comes to the farming industry they turn their backs and are not prepared to give any assistance.

Let me share with the members a brief that was presented to that task force yesterday by the Huron County Federation of Agriculture which is very much in line with practically every other brief that was submitted before that task force:

"This task force could very well be providing farmers a last chance to state publicly and peaceably the desperate economic crisis we are facing. Now that this task force has been under way for a couple of weeks, you are no doubt hearing similar concerns expressed by farmers and agriculturally related industries from different areas and producing a variety of farm products.

"We hope that if enough people express the same concerns often enough, politicians will finally get the message and act. High interest rates, high input costs and low commodity prices are killing us. What a mass of contradictions our governments are. Our Premier can afford $10 million for a private jet. The auto industry has received hundreds of millions of dollars in interest relief and direct grants. Farm equipment manufacturers receive huge grants. Millions can be spent to purchase oil companies. Yet we are told there is no money available to aid agriculture, the major industry.

4:20 p.m.

"Many farmers are in their present financial circumstances because they modernized, enlarged and consolidated their farming operations. They were encouraged to do so by the advice of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the lending institutions and the teaching institutions. All quarters have been encouraging farmers to become more efficient and have equated efficiency with getting bigger and having more sophisticated equipment. This costs money. What was feasible at eight or 10 per cent interest is no longer feasible at 20 to 25 per cent, and previous commitments cannot be erased.

"Whatever ideas politicians may have for dealing with matters other than the economy is not our prime concern. We must have an immediate lowering of interest rates. Both governments share a responsibility for this problem. Other provincial governments have offered lower interest rate programs for farmers. There is no reason Ontario cannot provide a comparable program.

"The equalization payment program offered by the federal government should be accepted by Ontario. No excuses offered by the provincial government for not offering similar agricultural economic programs to farmers, comparable to other provinces, are acceptable.

"The federal government is responsible for setting the interest rates and providing an overall economic policy for the country. When its policy is having such an adverse effect on such a vital part of this country's economy, it is its responsibility to provide relief. Both governments have shown a callous lack of concern and commitment to the agricultural industry.

"All types of farming are being hit by the present high interest rates, not only those with no marketing boards or marketing boards with no price-setting powers, but farmers working with agency-powered marketing boards are feeling the crunch. It has just taken a bit longer to hit.

"Many talk of young farmers being hard hit. Think further. What about those with 15 to 25 years and longer invested in time, labour and money in their farms? They are being forced to borrow against their equity to survive. Imagine you were an urban dweller going to work but receiving no wages and being forced to borrow against your pension plan, home and other assets to cover your living expenses with every sign pointing to the fact you would lose all. This is the situation farmers are in.

"In light of the present economic situation, we cannot recommend that anyone enter this business of farming. We must have immediate and long-term commitments to agriculture from both provincial and federal governments.

"The marketplace must return the cost of production plus a reasonable profit. We must have a commitment from government that it regards agriculture as an important industry. We must have a long-term credit program with a massive infusion of capital to refinance the federal farm agencies, and this capital must be available to agriculture at not over 12 per cent interest.

"An Ontario government program should be started which would encompass such things as tile drainage loans, startup programs for beginning farmers or interest programs for farmers similar to those of the other provinces. The present economic situation does not allow Ontario residents to purchase farm land or to farm it."

I will not go on. There is a little more here, but they did end their brief with big bold letters at the bottom, "No action, no farmers, no food." I think that is something the government had better start thinking about over there. It is going to answer to its consumers if they have to pay more money for their food because of the shortage of supply here in Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this resolution put by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, particularly because I spent my early years as a farm boy in the very riding represented by the member. For those who think I only know about growing vegetables underground, I should say that I spent the first 18 years of my life on a farm and I often hark back to those days.

I will continue with some of the points my colleague was trying to make before he was summarily dismissed from the debate and told to sit down.

I noticed when I read the resolution -- I read it several times before I dared get up and speak -- there is absolutely no mention of interest rates. I thought: "Is the member trying to get the message across here that interest rates are the problem without saying they are the problem? If that is the case, why would he not want to talk about interest rates in the wording of the resolution?"

I did not know what the reason was and I did not want to make any scurrilous assumptions about the member, who represents my former home. I could not help but think, though, that just maybe the member was a little worried about expressing dismay at the policies of his federal counterparts in Ottawa. I know the member for Haldimand-Norfolk is not suggesting only interest rate problems face the farmers today. There are many others as well.

In his resolution he makes two basic points: first, that economic pressures are forcing farmers out of agriculture, and second, that the government should set up both short-term and long-term programs in order to allow our farmers to compete with farmers in other jurisdictions. That is the meat of his resolution. When the member for Haldimand-Norfolk first said the present system is going to force the efficient farmers out of business and leave the inefficient ones in farming I thought he had made a mistake until I started to think about it.

I assume what he means is that the efficient farmers are the ones with a lot of equipment, perhaps a lot of buildings, high mortgages and high total borrowing such as mortgages. Those tend to be the efficient farmers in the province. If that is what he means, and I think it is, then I suspect he is right. Those very efficient farmers will be driven out of business and we will not have as efficient a sector in the province as we should have.

Like a lot of people, when I think of the farming sector I think of the small farmer, the family farm. Many years ago economists used to debate about whether farming should be free enterprise or whether there should be more government involvement and to what extent the actions of one farmer benefit himself but overall will lead to problems. For example, that is why they set up marketing boards -- to protect farmers as a whole from oversupply. However, if one farmer could break the marketing boards that farmer would be better off because of the amount that farm will produce.

It seems to me the cultural values and lifestyles that exist on small farms are worth retaining. They make up a valuable part of the rural mosaic in Ontario. We do not want to lose that. I think that is terribly important, not just for Ontario but for Canada as a whole. If we are going to retain that we have to encourage farmers to go to agricultural colleges, to come back to the farm and encourage young farmers to start new farms, to buy the farms of those who are retiring. That is not going to happen if the present policies continue. I suspect the member who put this resolution would agree it is a double-barrelled responsibility between the federal and provincial governments.

I know the alternative to all those small family farms out there is agribusiness. When we have that degree of vertical integration by the large food chains it does not serve any of us well. The consumer will not be better off, the farmers themselves will not be better off and that is what will be left.

Mr. McNeil: Where is the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell)?

Mr. Laughren: More to the point, where is the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson)? He should be here listening to these pearls of wisdom.

I suspect there are a number of ways we can measure the commitment of a government to the farming community. One way a government can show its interest and commitment to the farming community is the extent to which the processing of food grown by farmers takes place in Ontario. That is where this government is very sadly lacking. I agree with the thrust of the member's resolution but it does not go nearly far enough. If one is talking about a long-term strategy, one of the biggest failures of this government is its failure to ensure that less and less of our processed food is imported, primarily from the United States.

4:30 p.m.

I am not talking about the tropical fruits we cannot grow in this province; I am talking about processed foods we can grow and process in Ontario. It is not being done. That is a long-run failure of this government. It simply has no strategy.

When I think about the processing of food I think how farmers would be better off with that bigger market for their produce and I think how consumers would be much better off. Quite frankly, when we are at the mercy of foreign exporters who export to Canada we do not have control of our food sector. It is no accident the cost of food in this country is one of the major contributors to the high rate of inflation we now have. So the government has failed miserably when it comes to planning and strategy for the processing of food. That is simply not fair.

Another measurement of the degree of commitment the government has to the farming community is the amount of credit it extends to the farmers. According to the Farm Credit Corporation in an article entitled Farm Credit in the Canadian Financial System -- and the latest figures we have are to March 31, 1980 -- this was the kind of commitment this province has compared with other provinces.

There were 85,800 farms in Ontario at that point and the amount of provincial government credit per farm was $1,199. In British Columbia, with 20,800 farms, there was $1,317 per farm extended in government credit. That was more than Ontario. In Saskatchewan, with 69,200 farms, the amount of government credit was $1,949 per farm; one and a half times that of Ontario. Prince Edward Island, 3,100 farms, the amount of government credit per farm is $2,580; roughly twice that of Ontario. In Manitoba, with 29,300 farms, the amount of government credit per farm was $3,072; two and a half times the amount of credit per farm in Ontario.

Mr. Watson: How many farms?

Mr. Laughren: I am giving you the number of farms in each province; listen.

In Alberta, 58,500 farms, the amount of government credit per farm was $6,140. That is three times that of Ontario, and a significant number of farms. In New Brunswick, 3,700 farms, it was $9,189 per farm. That is four times the level of Ontario. In Nova Scotia, with 5,800 farms, the amount of credit was $11,724 per farm. That is six times the Ontario level.

In Quebec, 51,500 farms, it was $17,312 government credit per farm. That was eight times the level this government has seen fit to extend to the farmers of Ontario. That is no commitment at all. They have abandoned the very people who have looked to this government for support and given this government a lot of support over the years. They have betrayed them. As I sit down, I must say it is time that both levels of government reassess their commitment to agriculture in this country.

Mr. Sheppard: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise to speak to this resolution. I met the member for Haldimand-Norfolk through my son, but after March 19 he moved to Tillsonburg.

The member for Haldimand-Norfolk is absolutely right. The government should recognize that economic pressures are giving farmers a hard time, and not only farmers. Of course, I presume the member meant the federal government. The national economy is the responsibility of the federal government.

I should like to point out something else he may have overlooked. The federal government is a Liberal government. I realize the concept of a Liberal government may be a little difficult for a Liberal member of this House to comprehend, but there is a Liberal government in Ottawa. That is the government that should be doing something about the economic climate.

My colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food said the federal Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, acknowledged the fact only two weeks ago at a meeting here in Toronto.

It is a well-understood fact that farm credit is the responsibility of the federal government. We made an agreement with the federal government in 1969 to withdraw from that area on the grounds it was their job and they would do it. By and large, we have kept that agreement. We have to give the federal government the opportunity to fulfil its national obligation. I realize we quite often have to remind them forcefully of just what those obligations are. In the case of farm credit, they need a lot of reminding.

They set up the Farm Credit Corporation to handle farm credit and they have let it go underfunded while its interest rates soar. They are doing a lousy job of fulfilling their national obligations right now. Four or five years ago, the FCC provided 63 per cent of the long-term money borrowed by farmers. In three short years, that percentage fell to 35 per cent. The federal government kept letting the FCC go short of funds and that is still their policy.

They are not living up to their responsibility, so the province has to step in on occasion. The emergency beef payments are a good example. The provincial government will always support Ontario farmers when federal programs or responsibilities fail. We always have and we always will. If the member for Haldimand-Norfolk really wants to help farmers, he better start writing letters to Ottawa to the federal member of his own party. Maybe Mr. Whelan's cabinet colleagues will listen. They do not seem to be listening to anybody else at the moment.

There has been a lot of talk about other provincial programs. I would like to tell the House about an experience I had recently. Quebec had a storage problem for a while. They do not have it any more. I was talking to a man in my riding in Campbellford who has a silo construction business. I might add, this afternoon I phoned that silo company in Campbellford and two silo companies have lost between 70 and 75 silos because of the cutback in Quebec, almost $1 million worth. It seems to me that was a program that had lots of fanfare but not much money in the cash register for it to run out.

I remind members I know what I am talking about when it comes to agricultural programs. I have been a farmer in this province all my life. I have had a good opportunity to view the government's performance over the years. I remember many provincial programs that were brought in to plug holes left by the federal government. They worked to keep our farmers on track. I know whatever programs are necessary will be established in the future, as they have been for many years.

I also remind members, many of whom are farmers themselves, that farmers are a hang-tough crowd. Sometimes I think that makes them a pretty unusual group, but the fact remains they are not big on taking handouts. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food estimates are going on now. Anybody who has been paying attention will know the minister is keeping very much on top of the situation.

His staff are collecting information from every available source so he can pinpoint the exact condition. I repeat, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk belongs to the party that has given us high interest rates and an underfunded federal Farm Credit Corporation. I suggest he get out his pen and start writing to Ottawa quickly before the postal rates go up again.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution and congratulate the member for Haldimand-Norfolk for bringing it forth. Certainly, we have a severe situation out in the farms these days and it has been brought about mainly because of high interest rates. What can we do about that? The other provinces have taken steps to help their farmers. The Ontario government has done very little. I would like to support my colleague in saying to this government that it should do the same things as other provinces are doing to give our farmers the same competitive opportunities that farmers in other provinces are getting.

I think one thing it could do would be to revise the junior farmer loan to give it to all farmers, not just junior farmers, and allow the farmers to refinance their existing debts at, say, 13 per cent over 25 years. I think this would certainly help the situation. It may be the most feasible thing the government could do too, although rebates on interest rates would be quite acceptable.

I want to mention that I was called to a farm in Wellington county one morning about seven o'clock. They wanted me there by 11 o'clock. When I got there, 25 farmers were there and the farm had just gone into receivership. From that meeting there we arranged to meet with Whelan. A survey was taken of the farm situation in Grey, Bruce and Wellington. Through that survey and the various means we had, it showed that 50 per cent of the money farmers were borrowing was on the floating interest rate. I think it was criminal the way the interest rate was allowed to jump from 13 per cent to 23 per cent in just a few short months. That is certainly what has caused the biggest problem.

I just want to quote, as I close here, a statement that was made by someone "If we burn down our cities, the shops will spring up again like magic. But if we burn down our farms, grass will grow in all the streets in every town in the province."

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the government side is using the same tactics. It indicates to me that they have been around for 40 years and it will be 45 before another election, and they are very arrogant. I was not elected to represent Ottawa. If I had wanted to run for that position I would have done so. I was elected to represent the people of Ontario at the Legislature at Queen's Park and that is what I intend to do.

One can read into the resolution what one likes, but I would have liked to have broadened it to cover the small business area and the housing area, because I know that anybody who has to pay 24 per cent interest just cannot survive in the economy today unless he or she has had a tremendous amount of backing. Again, I appreciate the support from the NDP. I appreciate all the people who have taken part in this debate.

I just hope we can bring up to the government the fact that other provinces are doing something for their agricultural industries that they feel is important. Other nations are doing it for their agricultural industries. We just want to give the government a little bit of a push to see if it cannot do something to protect our agricultural industry and see it grow again. Our young people would like to have an opportunity to get their hands on that land. But this government goes for the big and the strong and if the little guys are not given a chance, it is going to drive them to the Socialist system as it has in other countries.

I would like to read a little article that appeared in the Globe and Mail on October 18, 1981, headed Food is Rationed in Romania. It says: "Romania has become the second East-bloc country after Poland to introduce food rationing since the immediate post-Second World War period. Romania has announced bread rationing, setting annual consumption limits on wheat and corn products and making it a criminal offence to feed grain to animals.

"The ration of bread and flour-based products works out at about 14 ounces (396 grams) per person a day, while the average allocation of corn, a local staple, will be about 5.5 pounds (2.50 kilograms) a month."

I do not think we have to look forward to something like that in Canada and in North America. As long as I am a member of this Legislature, I want to leave it for our young people to produce for future generations, and that is what this is all about to me.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Grande moved second reading of Bill 101, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reserve the time that I will have left.

I would like to begin introducing this bill in the light of the fact that corporal punishment has been going on in schools, I suppose, since time immemorial. As we progress as a society, as we understand more and more how the mind of a child functions and how best to teach a child, we should begin to leave behind in the history books the vestiges of what are sarcastically being called torture techniques.

Coercion and physical force have no place at all in the educational life of our children. Child abuse in the principal's office is no longer acceptable. It is the provincial government, not the individual school boards, that must act in order to ban the use of the strap in our schools. I will make it clear a little later why it is a provincial responsibility to act now.

I strongly believe, and all members of the Legislature will surely likewise believe, that the values of a democratic society cannot be secured, cannot be inculcated in our youth by means of physical punishment. On the contrary, the guiding ethic of the process of education must be to create in the schoolrooms of the province an atmosphere where work, achievement, effort and self-worth are recognized and, above all, valued.

It is ironic that what one arm of government does, another one usually attempts to undo. In the past two to three years the Ministry of Community and Social Services is finally moving to establish programs to stem child abuse. Yet in our schools force is legitimately and lawfully administered. If a child arrives in our schools beaten up with a belt the school staff are required by law to report that fact to the children's aid society so that the matter can be investigated. We are shocked, disgusted and alarmed when such an event occurs, yet somehow it becomes acceptable to strap a child in a school principal's office. As far as I am concerned this is simple and pure hypocrisy.

I hope the Ministry of Community and Social Services has amply communicated its concerns to the minister, and as a result I expect to have strong support for this bill from that cabinet member, who of course is not in his seat right now.

Speaking of cabinet members being in their seats, I had my office call the office of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) simply to ask if she would be here for the debate, because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, in the past three or four months the minister has been attempting to do something to the effect of what I am talking about today. The answer from the minister's office was that yes, she would be there, but that more than likely she would not participate in the debate. I said that was fine, provided that the minister was present at least to hear my thinking and that of other members of the Legislature on this very important topic.

4:50 p.m.

It is not often that we debate topics of controversy and attitudes and feelings -- feelings that are within ourselves -- in this Legislature. When it happens one would wish that some of the cabinet ministers would be here. I guess I should be happy that we have four backbenchers sitting in the back rows.

As members are aware, the Minister of Education on January 17, 1981, sent a memorandum to the chairmen of school boards across Ontario asking them to bring to their respective boards the matter of corporal punishment. Some time later, the minister also sent the boards the review and evaluation bulletin entitled, Corporal Punishment in the Schools.

In the memo of January 17, 1981, the minister said to the boards, and I quote, "I think you will conclude, as I have done, that if the schools are to make their best contribution to the moral development of the student and to the moral climate of the community, there is no place in the schools of Ontario for institutionalized corporal punishment."

I must say that in standing in my place today I happen to be in total agreement -- probably one of the first times that it has occurred -- with the Minister of Education on this particular issue.

The boards of trustees met one after the other in February, March and April of this year. As far as I am concerned, the decisions they have made are the most depressing I have ever been able to read in the daily press. The boards, by and large, decided to maintain what is termed the status quo. The decisions were to continue to beat up, abuse and humiliate the youth in our schools. They decided to maintain the instrument of psychological, moral and emotional torture in the principal's office. Therefore, I think we have to ask why.

Before I do that I want the Minister of Education -- and I guess she will read the remarks that are made -- to clearly understand that she asked the boards of education across this province in a polite way -- in other words, she said to the boards: "Will you look at this? Will you please come to a decision as to what you are going to do?" The boards have answered the minister by saying in effect, "We want to stay the way we are."

Given the Minister of Education's strong feelings and strong commitment to this particular issue, I would say to the minister it is imperative that the government and her ministry must move on this topic and must move now. I guess the best way to begin is by supporting this legislation which is before this House today.

I was talking about the minister's strong feelings. I want to quote some of the minister's strong feelings from Hansard during the Education estimates of June 15, 1981. The minister says, on page S243 of Hansard:

"Since we have learned that application of physical punishment is less than supportive of a learning experience in a school, surely it is within the capability of the educational ministry, the structure which delivers education and the professionals who are involved, to find ways of disciplining kids by means other than beating them to a pulp."

Further, the minister says, "But to take him to the principal's office, bring out the horrendous looking instrument of torture and terrify the kid in some instances, because that is what happens, is not fair."

Those are pretty strong feelings from the Minister of Education of this province, and I would hope the people from the other side, who are right now in this Legislature, will take into account the minister's position and be knowledgeable of the minister's position before they get up in this Legislature to vote.

I must return to the question of why the boards of education are deciding to maintain the status quo. Of course, in political terms it is understandable. The reason it is understandable is that the population at large is divided on the issue; the population at large seems to be split almost 50:50. A recent public opinion poll, a Star poll as a matter of fact, of April this year, found that out of 200 Metropolitan Toronto residents 45 per cent support corporal punishment, 44 per cent oppose it, and 11 per cent say it depends on circumstances. Of those 200 residents, though, 51 per cent of those who have children in the school system oppose corporal punishment and 35 favour it.

In the review and evaluation bulletin I mentioned earlier, surveys of parents, pupils, teachers, vice-principals and principals were carried out in 1979-80, and 2,043 parents returned the questionnaire. I want to turn to that page in this report because I think it should be read almost in totality. By the way, I just must say to the people sitting on the other side, all the information I am using is information which comes from the Ministry of Education. On page 14 it says:

"A total of 2,043 parents returned the questionnaires. Of these, 1,199 approved use of the strap 'if the principal feels it is appropriate'; 649 did not. The strap should be employed to punish 'continual deliberate defiance of school authority and as a last resort'; 1,014 for 'stealing or vandalism;' 749 'or for swearing or being rude to the teacher.'"

Yet, of the 178 parents reporting that their children had been strapped -- we are talking about a mere seven to eight per cent, so it is not in great use in our schools, this instrument of torture -- 97, which is over 50 per cent, said its use had either no effect or a negative effect on their kids.

Student responses are also revealing. In all, 2,267 participated. Only 379 felt the strap made pupils "behave better," while 1,177 stated it did not. About half, 1,168, said that if the strap were taken out of the schools there would be no difference in the number of discipline problems, a total of 644 responded that there would be more discipline problems, and 233 predicted fewer problems. Teachers also rank the strap as having very little effectiveness in discipline.

5 p.m.

The possible conclusion that this provincial review arrives at is this:

"A possible conclusion from these findings is simply that the continued use of and support for corporal punishment is the result of adult frustrations over how to deal with the worst behavioural problems in schools. Seen in this light, corporal punishment survives because of the failure of discipline with some pupils. As a corrective measure it is seen as ineffective, a feeling confirmed by psychological and sociological research findings that punishments have little deterrent effect in correcting behaviour and are likely to have a negative one."

This is a provincial review I am talking about, a document produced by the Ontario Ministry of Education.

I do not intend to make a dissertation out of this speech by calling on the research that has been done. Suffice it to say that the majority of the research I have seen in the past 15 years during which I have been involved either as a politician or as an active educator in the educational system in this province suggests that corporal punishment should have no place in our public schools, period. In 1971, a researcher by the name of Chamberlain summarized the research conclusions on corporal punishment as follows:

"Punishment has a history of ineffectiveness and futility covering several thousand years. Punishment is considered detrimental to the development of democratic views and truly democratic discipline. The dominating tendencies and aggression manifested by many persons in applying punishment indicate that these persons to some degree are neurotic. Children rapidly learn the methods of authority, dominance and aggression demonstrated by the teacher. Since methods which are demonstrably more effective are available, reliance on punishment and stronger methods seems truly wasteful.

"All forms of correction with punishment have one thing in common: A person learns from them what not to do but not what to do. To be more effective, punishment should be based on the following: It must be administered in terms of the past life of the child; it must be based on understanding rather than emotion; the reason for the punishment has to be understood by the child; it must be related to the act rather than to the one who committed the act."

Mr. Speaker, I want to put to you in the strongest possible way that I do not want the members who are going to join this debate to assert a similarity between discipline and corporal punishment, because those two are not synonymous at all. Discipline should be one of the goals of the educational process; discipline enhances the educational process; the values we learn as individuals are what discipline is all about. However, corporal punishment tends to inhibit the educational process; it tends to develop aggressions in the individual and it fosters violence. The old saying is, "Violence begets violence."

To equate the removal of the strap with the removal of discipline is a completely fallacious argument. Children must have limits and controls -- we all know that and we all accept that. The proper development of a sense of self-worth and an understanding of the worth of others come about by involvement as citizens in the school community. Discipline should be a goal of education; corporal punishment inhibits education.

The Deputy Speaker: One minute.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up the whole minute. I just want to ask the members on the other side and the members of the Liberal Party, "Please do enter the debate, but let's be constructive about it."

Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, the bill tabled before this House today is a controversial one: there is no doubt about that. In fact, I think we all know there is a great variance of opinion among the public as to the proper course of action here.

This amendment, while it attempts to deal with what is perceived by the member as a problem, is in my opinion a faulty one. The member opposite considers himself to be a champion of the rights of children, and he has used some very emotionally charged words in the last few minutes that I doubt have any place in the reasoned debate that is supposed to be going on about this matter.

For one thing, he has equated what we are talking about here with child abuse. He has drawn a picture of a battered, bruised and perhaps bleeding child who would be a fit ward of the children's aid society as though that were a result of the sort of corporal punishment that would be administered in a school for cause. There is no similarity there at all. It is not a suitable example.

Furthermore, he has referred to the strap, or whatever other instrument he might be thinking of, as an instrument of torture. No matter where he got the idea -- and I recognize it probably came from some other source than his own brain -- I do not accept that as a suitable description of anything that is used in our schools in this province today. Maybe he is thinking of the thumbscrew, the rack, the iron maiden or some other device like that. I do not think that is a fair comparison either. Certainly nobody uses things that could be called instruments of torture.

In spite of the noble ambition displayed by the member, I do not think the elimination of corporal punishment at this time would be appropriate without further study and discussion. The member's amendment does not represent the views of the community at large. I have said there are differences of opinion here, and I differ very strongly with the member who is proposing this bill. If this were a cut and dried issue and there were general agreement, which there is not, then I suggest we should not change the Education Act in any event but rather amend the regulations made under the act.

However, I am not going to get into that particular aspect of the question.

The simple fact is that educators, parents and students alike are not all in agreement with the idea in this bill. I put it to the member that the reason they would not support it is that in the course of their experience they have found that the strap has proved to be a deterrent, whether it is used or not. I do not know about the honourable member who is supporting this bill, but many of us have disciplined our children at home for breaking a rule or condition we have imposed by spanking them or something similar to that and they were none the worse for it.

Mr. Haggerty: That's where discipline begins.

Mr. Dean: I am glad to hear that comment from the member for Erie. I agree 100 per cent that is where it begins. But, unfortunately, it does not end there, because in some cases there is not a very good beginning.

The children are none the worse for that kind of disciplining. In the process of disciplining them, we are fulfilling a parental duty that has been imposed upon us by society and by our own standards. Discipline is something essential to our survival as a nation and as individuals. We are not born as civilized and socialized beings. We must be taught the values and structures of society in order that we may properly take our place as part of the larger group.

5:10 p.m.

So it is in the classrooms. Students are there to learn and to master more than just reading and writing. Students learn that the teacher is the one in charge -- if they have a good teacher -- and that they are responsible for being punctual, attentive and polite. They learn to interact with their peers within the school environment.

Interacting with one's peers does not mean fist fights in the school yard or locker room. It does not mean constant interruptions during a teacher period. Nor does it mean giving verbal abuse to one's classmates or taking verbal abuse from them. Things like that are considered unacceptable at home or at school. Maybe some of them are considered acceptable in this chamber, but I do not think so.

A teacher with a larger class is in no position to be forced repeatedly to take time to try to reason with one child who has a continual behavioural problem. When a particular child repeatedly shows disrespect for reasonable rules and ignores the regular methods of discipline, alternative action is required.

There are certain instances, and I grant there may not be many of them, where the strap would be an appropriate form of discipline. I would suggest it would be used only when a school board has a stated policy regarding its use, but those boards should not be denied that. The policy would have to be acceptable to the residents of the community, under conditions the board sees fitting.

I am interested to note that the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) has suggested it is not the responsibility of the boards to manage the school in this instance but that the provincial government should come down with a heavy hand on this. I am not surprised at that, because I think it is typical of the remedy he and some of his associates have for almost any ill: "Let big, heavy government come in on it." I do not believe that. There is a place in our society for the local autonomy of boards which are legally set up. The more we have of local responsibility, the better things will run.

Moreover, I think it was interesting that, while the member for Oakwood has said parents should not have the choice through the feelings they would make known to their local boards of determining whether there should be corporal punishment in a school, he and his colleagues -- I think he may feel this way; certainly it is the stated policy of his party -- would deny the parents the right to say whether the unborn child should be protected.

The policy we are speaking of would have to be acceptable to the residents of the community under conditions the board would establish as fit; and, before anyone would take the strap to anyone, there certainly would be incidents that would justify it following the failure of other forms of discipline.

This is not likely to arise out of the blue. It could be there are problems at home that upset the child and cause that person to lash out against the teacher or other students but, when school officials are aware that kind of problem exists, then I have no doubt they would temper their judgement accordingly.

Whatever the conditions, the strap should be used only as a last resort when all else fails and communications are broken down. It should be administered only by the principal, and the parents should be advised that it is to be used -- not to get their consent but to let them know.

Children need to know that there is a consistent approach to discipline and that, if they overstep the bounds laid down, they will suffer the consequences. We do not do them any favour by creating the impression that there is no personal, serious liability for their conduct and that everything they may think of doing is their God-given right.

Children are constantly challenging and pushing their barriers. They begin to learn what is and is not tolerated by adults. If we fail in our duty to set firm barriers, a point is reached where we lose the respect and love of our children.

What I am advocating is the return -- if we have advanced from it -- to the kind of parental discipline of our children that is fair and enforced, to the ways most of us experienced in our own childhood and we have tried to carry out. In the long run, this will do everyone good.

Who are the teachers we remember? They are not the ones who were easygoing and relaxed disciplinarians. They are the ones who demanded and got attention, who treated everyone fairly and disciplined those who were acting up.

Teaching will be strengthened if it is generally known that there is fair and equitable treatment of all these things. I know that many of my constituents oppose the notion expressed in this bill. Under the present act, boards of education which so determine may adopt this policy.

I urge members not to support this bill.

Mr. Sweeney: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member for Oakwood for bringing forward this issue. It is one that has occupied the time of many members of this Legislature, particularly when we were debating the changes and amendments to the Child Welfare Act and the whole question of child abuse in our society.

I point out to my honourable colleagues on both sides of the House, however, that there are different ways of abusing children. I am reminded by my colleague to my right that in many cases, both in our homes and in our schools, the kind of verbal or psychological abuse we use on kids is frequently much more severe and much more serious and does much greater damage than some of the physical abuse that is imposed on them. Therefore, I draw to my colleagues' attention that it is a very broad issue.

While I agree with the member for Oakwood that this is a matter we should attempt to resolve, I am not convinced that his method of resolving it is the best one. I speak from my experience within the schools, I speak from my experience as a parent and I speak from my experience as a critic in this Legislature, having met quite a number of parents, trustees, teachers and students over the past five or six years.

I want to digress for a moment to speak to my honourable colleague the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean), who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), and to the member for Oakwood.

I am referring here particularly to the words of the minister as opposed to those of the parliamentary assistant. I remember that in the estimates of the Ministry of Education I had to draw to the minister's attention and, quite frankly, chide her on the use of such phrases as, I think it was, "beating children to a pulp" or "using instruments of torture."

I think all of us in this House realize that this does not take place in our schools. Children are not tortured in our schools; kids are not beaten up in our schools. These kinds of things do not happen in the corporal punishment administered by teachers. They may happen from student to student. As a matter of fact, they not only may happen; we know they do happen from student to student in some cases.

If we are going to have a debate on this issue and if we are going to resolve this issue, then it behooves us not to use that kind of language, because we immediately alienate an entire segment of the public who would otherwise participate in such a debate.

I am not convinced that my colleague the member for Oakwood is pursuing the right approach here, because we have to look, first of all, at what is happening in our schools now, at what the consequences of this particular action would be and at some of the other ways in which it might be done better.

When the member for Oakwood first indicated that he was going to introduce this bill in the last session, one of my assistants and I made a survey of a fairly good random sampling of the school boards and the various teacher federations across this province.

We found out a couple of things. We found, first of all -- and the member for Oakwood quoted a figure: I think it was seven or eight per cent -- that the strap has been almost eliminated as a form of corporal punishment in our schools anyway, that it is used relatively rarely and that a number of school boards in the province have already banned the strap in their jurisdictions.

In fact, I remember reading in one of the Toronto papers during the last four or five days that the Timmins Separate School Board had made a decision at its last board meeting that it will not be done.

5:20 p.m.

I point out to the honourable member that even in those jurisdictions where it is still permitted, and where the boards require some form of reporting technique, we are told that the most any school in their system reports using the strap is three times in a year.

Granted, there may still be a few school boards in the province where they do not have some sensible guidelines, or where they do not keep reporting mechanisms, but what I must say to my colleagues is that those we contacted either did not allow the strap or had very strict guidelines and pointed out to us that it is rarely used anyway. I think we have to keep in mind that the whole thing is in the process of gradually being eliminated.

I must say that my own feelings are that we should continue to encourage this process. In my judgement, one of the things we would do, if we kept this bill exactly as it is, would be simply to send out a message that said, "We are telling you what you cannot do, but we are not prepared to do anything to assist you."

If the minister were present, I would ask her to examine why is it that some of these things take place in our schools. Why is it that some of our students are so frustrated over their lack of success in school and their continual failure in school that they resort to the kind of behaviour that draws corporal punishment? Why is it that some of our teachers are so frustrated and so overworked that they resort to this particular method of discipline?

I want to compliment the member for Oakwood for drawing to our attention that the word "discipline" must be used in a very different sense than just meaning corporal punishment. But the fact remains that there are a number of problems in our schools.

Simply to say that a teacher is no longer allowed to use the strap, without giving that teacher any assistance to solve some of the problems that he or she is facing, I think is irresponsible on our part. I think our responsibility at the provincial level is to see to it that our schools, our teachers and our students get the kind of educational assistance which would make the strap unnecessary. I think that is a desirable goal.

I want to make one other point. As the member for Oakwood said so well himself, in an issue like this we are dealing with attitudes and feelings. They are important. It just happens to be one of those kinds of issues where we are not talking of something that is either very simply black or very simply white, or where you can come down on one side or the other and not feel any qualms whatsoever. It is not that kind of an issue.

There are deep attitudes and deep feelings, as the member for Oakwood mentioned, in this whole issue. There are people who legitimately hold these attitudes and feelings on both sides. I think it is not proper for us simply to wipe that off and not take that factor into consideration.

It would be far better for the Minister of Education to send out some very firm, very clear and very precise guidelines and to say to the principals of our schools and to the trustees of our school boards, "I want you immediately to set up, in every school in this province, a parent-teacher council which would look into the entire matter of discipline" -- discipline in the broadest sense of the word, and not just discipline meaning corporal punishment, with which, unfortunately, it is sometimes associated."

She should say to the parents and teachers in every school that they should sit down and examine the problems. Why are our kids misbehaving? Why are our teachers put into these kinds of positions? What is happening in the homes of these kids? Then the teachers could fully understand what is happening in the kids' homes, and the parents could fully understand what is happening in the classrooms and could say to them: "Let's work together on this."

I strongly believe that most of the schools in this province would emerge with a decision -- made voluntarily and co-operatively on the part of parents and teachers -- not to use corporal punishment. I do not know that for a fact, but I have a strong sense that is what would emerge. I say that would be a much better way for us to go.

What we have to appreciate is that at the present time, under the present conditions, morale in our schools among our teachers is not very high. There is a strong sense of frustration. There is a sense that the provincial government -- in some cases even this Legislature -- is simply pointing the finger of criticism at them all the time and saying: "We are going to take away this, take away that, and take away something else and not put anything legitimate in its place."

We have a severe and serious responsibility to say to them that we understand their concerns, that we want to work with them and that we want to pass resolutions and legislation in this House to make their job more workable and provide a closer co-operation between parents and teachers in the schools in deciding these kinds of issues. They are the significant adults in the lives of our students. If those people do not understand each other, do not agree with each other and do not work together for the benefit of the students, then nothing like this will work.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Oakwood for bringing forward this piece of legislation for debate in the Legislature. I will be supporting the bill, as will the majority of my colleagues in this party. Enough evidence has been put forward to school boards and teachers that corporal punishment is simply not effective in making sure that discipline is in existence in our classrooms throughout this province.

It seems to me the basic motive in the use of corporal punishment, and in particular the use of the strap, is discipline by fear among our young people in the classroom. That is a very negative and, in some respects, sick method of discipline. The studies the ministry has done in gathering various pieces of literature on corporal punishment indicate that the strap reinforces violence and negative behaviour in children. The Ministry of Community and Social Services and the people involved in the administration of the Child Welfare Act have indicated their concerns about the use of corporal punishment as well.

When I was a school board trustee in Windsor and we talked about this issue, the basic concerns were public attitudes, teachers' views, the need for support systems that would have to exist in the school system if corporal punishment were to be eliminated, and the cost of implementing such a program.

The strap is the cheapest and easiest way to deal with the problem. If a child is misbehaving, the best thing to do is to instil fear into him, and then the child may sit back and behave in class. He may not participate in discussions, he may not be an active student, he may not learn well, but if he sits in his seat, is quiet and does not disrupt the classroom, then that is fine, and the strap has been effective, as far as some people in our system are concerned.

If a child does something wrong, the strap is not the answer. We should be looking at the relationship that exists between the student and the teacher. If there is a good relationship between the teacher and the student, in most cases the child will want to please the teacher.

The most effective discipline is not to hit the child or use corporal punishment. The most effective way is to show disapproval of that behaviour. If there is affection and respect, the child will behave, because that disapproval will hit home with the child. To use physical discipline against a child is, I think, a totally wrong approach.

If we are going to get into adequate relationships between teachers and students, we have to look at class size in this province. We cannot expect a teacher to have a good working relationship with each child in his class if he has 40 students. It cannot happen. But that is exactly the case in many of our classrooms, with 35 and 40 students, in our elementary grades, and particularly in our primary grades, and the relationship never develops.

When I was a social worker in Windsor, I remember a child I worked with, who was in grade two. He was receiving the strap almost on a weekly basis for the first couple of months of his second school year. Eventually his parents came to me, their family social worker, and indicated their concern. They went to the principal and said they could not put up with this kind of discipline any longer.

A psychologist was brought in. He examined the situation and found that the child did not have a behaviour problem; he was under-challenged. They put him in a class where he was taking grades two and three together, and he was never again a behaviour problem in the two years after that during which I worked with the family.

Again, this is a case where the cheapest and easiest way to deal with the problem was to strap the child and eventually he would behave. It does not work at all. Had this treatment continued, they might have been successful in having him sit in the back of the classroom, without challenging the teacher, without participating. Eventually we would have had a child who would have been completely turned off by the system, who would have completely underachieved and who perhaps would have been one of the statistics of drop-outs which are on the increase in our system and have been for quite some time.

5:30 p.m.

There is a strange aspect of corporal punishment, the theory behind which I cannot understand. I will read: "A pupil shall accept such discipline as would be experienced by a kind, firm and judicious parent." If that is the case, why in so many of our schools does the teacher who teaches the student not apply the discipline? In many of our schools it is either one particular teacher who applies the strap for the whole school or it is the principal who applies the strap, not the individual teacher who has the relationship with the child.

It seems to me that parents would not go to a neighbour to apply the strap or to apply discipline to their child. They do it themselves. It just reinforces my whole opinion that using the strap or any form of corporal punishment in our system is sick and ineffective.

I was talking to a teacher and a principal at a retirement dinner for Mr. R. H. Field, the retiring director of education for Windsor, a couple of weeks ago. The principal indicated to me that he has two kids in his school who are being maintained on the strap. He said, "If it were not for the use of the strap, these children would not be able to stay in the school system."

He was maintaining them on the strap. Obviously, I totally disagreed with him and told him that, if that is the kind of methods they had to do to maintain him in the system, there was something wrong with the system.

From what the member for Wentworth said earlier, the biggest concern is simply that this government is concerned with public attitudes. It realizes the strap and corporal punishment are wrong, but the government is not willing to take the leadership to outlaw the strap because it is worried about public attitudes and the reaction of people in our communities who have been saying for years now, "Our schools are underdisciplined, and the children get away with murder in our school system."

That is simply nonsense. There has to be leadership from the ministry. There is all sorts of interference at this point by the provincial Ministry of Education at the local level, but it seems to me it is always selective interference. It is interference when it is popular but, when it is unpopular, all of a sudden it becomes a local decision.

If we are really to develop a system of education in this province that takes individual students and their needs into consideration, the first step towards doing that is to say we must eliminate corporal punishment and bring in a system of understanding and individual treatment of children, a kind relationship to children.

The leadership can come from the ministry. The minister has said on occasion that her position is that she does not believe in corporal punishment but will leave it up to the local boards. If the parliamentary assistant expresses that it should be done through regulation, I am sure that would satisfy the member for Oakwood, and it would certainly satisfy me.

If that is the way they want to do it, just tell us today that it is not going to be done by legislation but that it is going to be done by regulation and that, furthermore, the government is prepared to bring in some of the support services that are so very necessary so that when a child does have a problem in the classroom he can be helped with it.

They will have the social work support services and they will have the psychological support services. We can do the in-service training with the teachers who work for the school boards so they will be able to handle some of the problems we refer to as discipline problems, but that are really symptoms of children not coping well in a system that tries to treat all children the same. It is time we treated children as individuals and human beings, and not in the way this government tends to do with the present educational system.

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) has brought before us an issue that is of great concern to Ontario's teachers, parents and pupils -- there is no question about that. Discipline is a quality that is necessary if we are to continue living in a society that is ordered, structured and functioning smoothly.

I, as all members of this House, am concerned about the discipline of children. I am also concerned about the discipline of the society in which we live. Ideally, discipline should be taught at home by loving parents. Once in a school situation a child is formally introduced to the discipline of the larger society. Teachers, particularly in the lower grades, are in a position of authority, and they are charged with maintaining, under the direction of the principal, proper order and discipline in their classrooms. while on duty in the school and while on the school grounds.

Nowhere in the act does it state methods to be used in disciplining the child, and that is as it should be. I strongly believe that, today more than ever before, teachers in our elementary schools are charged with the important responsibility of moulding our future citizens. I for one certainly have a great deal of respect for and confidence in the professionalism of Ontario's teachers. I am sure there are many times when they must feel they are fighting a losing battle.

Parents, teachers and the community at large all have an obligation to try to alter the pattern of children with persistent behavioural problems, All too often we find that parents abdicate this responsibility and leave it to the school and to others to discipline their children. I can speak from some experience on this subject in that I have spent 32 years as a leader of Wolf Cubs. We have those boys for only an hour and a quarter or an hour and a half a week, and I can certainly appreciate some of the frustrations teachers must go through. In that short hour and a half one can see some of those children are receiving very little discipline at home.

Certainly the vast majority of parents do accept their responsibility and do have proper discipline around the home. This makes the teacher's life much easier in maintaining discipline in his or her classroom. After all, he or she may have 30 to 35 children to teach, and it becomes very difficult if one or two of these children are disruptive in the class. If I as a parent have done my job properly at home corporal punishment really should be completely unnecessary.

We are all acquainted with a number of school teachers; some of our colleagues here are former teachers. I am sure most of the teachers I know not only do not want to use the strap but in fact do not use the strap.

However, all students do not have the same temperament nor do all teachers have the same temperament. Whether or not the strap is used, the mere fact it can be used may be a deterrent to some of the students with behavioural problems.

It is a fact that the 15- to 24-year-old age group commit the highest number of crimes in our society. I do not know if we will ever know whether this is the result of a lack or an excess of discipline in their younger years. Quite frankly I wonder if we should return to corporal punishment in our penal system.

All members of this House are probably aware that in 1968 or thereabouts a memo from the ministry came down and was sent to all school officials in the province recommending that principals and teachers refrain from using corporal punishment as a means to discipline children. I understand from discussing this matter with the director of the Waterloo County Board of Education that although they discourage corporal punishment they do not advocate abolishing it. They support the idea that a teacher should be able to exercise the same discipline a kind, firm and judicious parent would.

The act should give each school board the flexibility to establish its own guidelines. It may well be that some boards, for their own reasons, will wish to regulate against corporal punishment while others may wish it to remain as a means of discipline.

There is no question the member will receive support within Ontario for the abolishment of corporal punishment.

5:40 p.m.

If one were to take 100 or 125 members of this Legislature, one would get many votes on either side. However, I am from the old school and I feel a slap on the bottom or on the hand has never hurt anyone. In fact it probably helped most of us learn right from wrong in our younger years.

Mr. Bradley: I rise to speak on this issue because I feel strongly about it. I often find myself in agreement with some of the proposals put forward by the member for Oakwood because his expertise in the field of education is considerable. I commend him for at least bringing this issue before the House. Having said that, that is about as far as I can go in agreement with him.

I do not wish to be characterized, as the Minister of Education wishes to characterize me, as some kind of villain who wishes to see the children of this province beaten with yardsticks or the cat-o'-nine-tails.

From my experience in teaching and from my communication with teachers on an ongoing basis -- indeed, with the parents across this province -- they say when the Minister of Education talks about abolishing the strap and when bills of this kind are brought before the Legislature those who do so are removing the last vestige of discipline in the education system. That is an overstatement and it is probably extremely unfair to say that. Nevertheless, it is reflecting a point of view held by a large number of people in Ontario.

I have heard people say -- and some of them are good friends of mine and colleagues in this House -- that one must be innovative, one must find other methods of disciplining students. But if we look at the experience of various boards across the province, and the Board of Education for the City of London is one which comes to mind, we find when the strap is abolished the general tone within that education system changes somewhat.

While we should ultimately, in a Utopian society, attempt to persuade people they should not break laws regardless of whether they are education laws or the rules of a classroom, ultimately fear of some kind of punishment does play a role in keeping control, not only within a classroom or school but within an entire school system.

I have yet to find people who can tell me there is a different ultimate disciplinary measure that can replace the strap in the school system. For instance, I have heard many people say the obvious solution is to suspend the child. That is one possible avenue of action and it is entertained by many schools. One sends the child home to what? In some cases, the child is sent to a broken home where mother has to go out to work, father is off in Alberta somewhere and no one is at home to look after that child who goes to the plaza or a pinball arcade.

These are possibilities that exist. That avenue of action, which many of my fellow members of this Legislature suggest is reasonable disciplinary action, cannot work. I have yet to find a suitable punishment other than the strap or the possibility of the use of the strap for the student who tells the teacher, in the federal venacular, to fuddle duddle, as someone once said.

Do you sit down with Johnny and say: "You must understand this is not what you are supposed to do. You are supposed to show respect for your elders." The psychological approach seldom works with children of that kind. There are those who act as bullies in a school yard who are afraid of nothing else. Many children in our education system, having committed an offence, now have no fear of any retribution.

I found in a survey I took in my own constituency -- and I had 2,500 replies to this survey, which is rather substantial -- the largest proportion of people who indicated a preference for either "yes" or "no" on an issue involved the issue of school discipline, where 92 per cent said they were in favour of stronger discipline within the schools. Many of those people translate that into retaining, at least, the strap as one of the possibilities within a school system.

In the olden days when people got the strap because they could not spell, or when a student was placed in front of a class and strapped to the amusement, or whatever, of his classmates, that was wrong. That was an abuse of that weapon of discipline. Nevertheless, under the present circumstances, where corporal punishment is usually administered by either the principal or the vice-principal, or in the view of the principal or vice-principal, many of the areas where abuse could have occurred in the past have been removed.

Indeed, within school systems across the province the use of the strap has diminished considerably but most teachers, certainly in the elementary school system, have requested that it be retained as a possible means of discipline, as a certain symbol of discipline within a school system. The Ontario Public School Men Teachers' Federation, I recall, took a poll earlier this year of its membership. The indication was pretty strong with that group that while its members did not wish to see the strap as a first line of defence in terms of discipline they wished to see it as an ultimate possibility.

I well recall, and this opens me to remarks from my colleague, a couple of occasions when I received the strap. On one occasion it was from a person who is now a high official in the Ministry of Education by the name of Kel Crossley. I was recalling this incident to him at a school reunion at the old Carleton school not long ago. I think I recognized at that time the value of that. I guess I could have been persuaded psychologically with the expenditure of a large amount of money that somehow getting kicked out of Mrs. Gawley's class for the fourth time was not proper. The rule was that the fourth time one was kicked out one was given the strap.

I am pointing out that for some people within the school system it is a necessary avenue of action to maintain discipline in the schools. Every time we take away one more method for teachers to discipline students, we allow a further deterioration in our school system. Ultimately we will find ourselves in a situation such as exists in New York state, where in many schools there are security guards walking down the halls keeping the discipline that teachers are unable to keep because of some of the changes that have taken place within that system. Most of the disciplinary tools in that system have been removed.

So I implore members of this Legislature to vote according to their own feelings on this matter. I strongly suspect if we reflect the viewpoint of the people of this province we will vote against the proposal of the member for Oakwood, against the proposal that was supported by the Minister of Education, and against a motion that will ultimately have a detrimental effect on our education system.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, could I ask how much time is left?

Mr. Speaker: About one and a half to two minutes.

Mr. Charlton: And then a minute for the mover?

Mr. Speaker: No, that is in total.

Mr. Charlton: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I want to respond to a number of the things the member for St. Catharines raised. He seemed to run through the vein very well but unfortunately missed the whole point. He talked about what to do as an alternative to strapping. Does one send a child home to a broken home?

5:50 p.m.

That seems to me exactly where he missed the point. Although there are lots of variations, there are basically only two kinds of students whom we attempt to discipline in the educational system. There are those who truly have behavioural problems elsewhere in their lives, which we are avoiding by using the strap, and those who are involved in competition one against the other for notoriety. In neither case does the strap act as a deterrent, nor does it solve any problems.

For those in competition with each other the strap becomes a status symbol. For those who have problems elsewhere in their lives, which we avoid by the use of the strap instead of dealing with the problem that is the reality for them, we probably extend the problem they are trying to deal with in their own lives.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I am really saddened by what I heard from that side of the House and somewhat by what I heard on this side of the House. I feel the member for Kitchener-Wilmot has a point in terms of assistance to teachers. The task force on discipline that has been set up -- especially with the boards -- is that those boards first move to eliminate the strap. Then they set up the task force on discipline to provide the methods for the teachers and other personnel in their boards.

I say to the members opposite if what the parliamentary assistant indicates is the direction this caucus is going to go, there are rumours around this province that the Minister of Education is about to be debunked, and they have debunked her.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. G. I. Miller has moved resolution 9.

Resolution concurred in.

6 p.m.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Mr. Grande's motion for second reading of Bill 101, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Boudria, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Copps, Di Santo, Elgie, Fish, Foulds, Gordon, Grande, Grossman, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mackenzie, McCaffrey, McClellan; Philip, Ramsay, Reid, T. P., Rotenberg, Shymko, Swart, Wells, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Bernier, Bradley, Brandt, Cousens, Cunningham, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Eves, Gillies, Gregory, Haggerty, Hennessy, Hodgson, Kerr, Kolyn, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCague, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Miller, G. I., Mitchell; Newman, Nixon, Norton, O'Neil, Pollock, Pope, Reed, J. A., Riddell. Runciman, Ruprecht, Ruston, Scrivener, Sheppard, Spensieri, Stevenson, Stokes, Sweeney, Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Treleaven, Van Horne, Walker, Watson, Williams.

Ayes 29; nays 57.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I think the table should get 10 floggings with a wet noodle. They missed me.

Clerk of the House: No, we did not.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to point out to all members that the member for Lake Nipigon was called first.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, while the members are all here I would like to quickly outline the business. As I indicated earlier, tonight we will debate the first 1981 report of the statutory instruments committee. Then we will debate the motion to adopt the third report of the standing procedural affairs committee dealing with agencies, boards and commissions. Tomorrow we will begin the estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet.

On Monday, October 26, we will complete the estimates of the Management Board, and in whatever time is remaining we will do second readings of Bills 18, 19 and 74 standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Then, if time permits, we will have third readings of any bills on the Order Paper.

On Tuesday, October 27, we will have second reading in committee of the whole House, if required, on Bill 141. Then for the rest of Tuesday in the afternoon and evening we will have debate in committee of the whole House on Bill 68.

On Wednesday, October 28, the usual three committees may meet in the morning: general government, resources development and administration of justice.

On Thursday, October 29, we will have private members' ballot items standing in the names of Mr. Jones and Mr. Elston, and in the evening on Thursday, October 29, we will continue with committee of the whole House on Bill 68. If time permits we will continue, if there is a resumed debate, on the report of agencies, boards and commissions.

On Friday, October 30, the House will consider a motion for interim supply, and will begin consideration of estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The House recessed at 6:06 p.m.

October 22, 1981