Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES

CONTENTS

Wednesday 20 November 1991

Ministry of Northern Development and Mines

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South PC)

Acting Chair: Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings NDP)

Vice-Chair: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South PC)

Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)

Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L)

Hansen, Ron (Lincoln NDP)

Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP)

McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)

McLeod, Lyn (Fort William L)

O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York NDP)

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview NDP)

Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands NDP)

Substitutions:

Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mrs McLeod

Hansen, Ron (Lincoln NDP) for Mr Wood

Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent NDP) for Mr Farnan

Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie NDP) for Mr Perruzza

Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)

Also taking part: Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)

Clerk: Carrozza, Franco

The committee met at 1537 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES

The Chair: I would like to call to order the standing committee on estimates. We have reconvened for the northern development section of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. We have two hours and 47 minutes remaining. In our last rotation we heard from Mr Eves, unfortunately for the last time since he has had to go to Quebec with the select committee on Ontario in Confederation and is unable to be with us today. I would like then to recognize, in rotation, Mr Martin.

Mr Martin: Just to recap a little bit and make some connection with the line of questioning I was asking the last time I was up, I was talking about the reality of scarce resources in face of some very huge challenges in northern Ontario as the recession has taken hold up there, probably more severely than in southern Ontario because of the one-industry nature of many of the communities. I certainly recognize the initiatives of your ministry in signing agreements with the federal government that speak to the economic renewal and revival of the area in time.

I have some concerns about some of the other areas. What I am asking for is some clarification. Apparently there is within your mandate, I think specifically through the northern Ontario heritage fund, the possibility of becoming involved in other areas besides economic development, in some social areas, and the ability to respond to particular needs of groups in communities that want to provide a service. Could you perhaps expand on that a little bit for me, so that we might understand more fully what that is all about?

Hon Miss Martel: I will do what I can. I might be a little confused about the question itself.

Yesterday, I talked about looking at the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp again, because we are in the midst of having to do a review that is legislated under the act in any event. We will, during the course of that review, be taking a look at some of the recommendations that have come before us from various groups, and also things we have seen about people whose applications we have denied because they do not fit our present criteria, to determine what kind of changes we may or may not want to make, what kinds of sectors we may or may not want to include.

One sector in particular that comes to mind, because there has been some work done and some recommendations made, is the retail sector, where at this point in time we do not really have an approval process or a way for businesses to qualify in that sense. There have been some recommendations and board members will have to look at them.

When you talk about social services, we continue to do work in the context of research, for example in health care. We have committed funding to Dr Ho at the northeastern Ontario regional cancer treatment centre in Sudbury to carry out research on cancer. Whether or not we will go any further along that line I cannot really say to the member at this point in time.

I can only say we do have to go through a review. We would like that review to be very broad and to take the broadest possible look at some of the groups that have come before us and been denied funding because they did not meet our criteria to determine whether or not we should include them.

Mr Martin: I want to focus it a bit more and get your impressions on how your ministry might or might not respond and perhaps then extrapolate from them to other groups. There are some groups in the north that are particularly handicapped when it comes to participating in the economic activity of their community and region. One of them, for example, would be the deaf community, which struggles with communication challenges of great size.

Would there be any provision in your mandate to perhaps help them become more involved in the economic activity of a community? Is there anything in past experience? Might you participate in any partnership between your ministry and perhaps Education, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and some others to maybe put in place opportunities for folks, particularly in the deaf community, to become more involved, and to use the resource that they are more fully to realize the potential of the north.

Hon Miss Martel: Last year at the estimates this ministry in particular was identified as being behind, quite honestly, in terms of dealing with employment equity issues. We did very well when we were located in Toronto and had a broader multicultural base to draw from. In moving the ministry to the north, we were found, in our estimates last year, to be lacking in that regard. So we have taken a number of steps this year, particularly directed by Sheila Willis and the corporate services division, to try to make some changes in that regard, to try to be much more open, do outreach, and see which ways we can bring in members of the disabled community in terms of working on our staff, in the hope that we will then be able to provide long-term employment.

If you do not mind, Tony, maybe I could ask Sheila if she would not mind coming to the microphone to go through some of the initiatives. I think they are very important and certainly signal that we are making changes and making efforts to respond to the need to hire, not only more people who are disabled, but specifically -- for the part of the world we represent -- native people as well.

Ms Willis: We are moving on a number of fronts as a major employer in the north to try and realize some employment equity goals. We have a number of very creative efforts that we are doing now in Sudbury. For instance, we are offering training and development opportunities when there are available vacant spaces on our in-ministry training courses, so that people who are looking for employment with the ministry, or with other ministries, can get some firsthand knowledge of how government operates and some specific hands-on education in areas that might help them when they are seeking employment.

We have identified specific positions within the ministry. In fact, we have created some positions specifically to enable employment equity group members to come to us as employees. We have done that in the finance branch and we are doing that in other areas now. Next week we are holding a management conference, not inside our building but outside at the Jarrett Centre, and meeting with groups across the community that are specifically working towards employment opportunities for disabled and other handicapped people in the community.

We have had native awareness seminars where we have brought the native community representatives to our ministry and talked with the employees and learned more about their culture and the kind of employment opportunities we might be able to work on with them. We are working on a number of fronts. It is not the kind of activity where you see instant results, but I think we will bridge some of those gaps in the long run.

Hon Miss Martel: We have tried to do it on a political level as well. Sheila talked about the native awareness sessions administered to ministry staff. On a political level, we have also run two sets: a smaller one for my own political staff and a second, much larger training session that went on last May that was held on Manitoulin Island. It was facilitated by Clayton Shawana and a number of others from the Wikwemikong band, along with other facilitators from outside the community, to very much try and sensitize the staff, of the northern members, in particular because a lot of them are from Toronto and may not in their past experience, either work or social, have dealt with native clientele. We spent the long weekend in May going through that. A great number of the political staff of the members who were there benefited from that. So we are trying to do a sensitization of our own staff, both political and ministry, in dealing with our clients.

Mr Martin: Thank you for that. I certainly hope you keep in mind that a group such as the deaf community that wants to participate more fully in the economic life of its communities has some particular needs that could in some instances be fairly expensive initially. So that they might get into the system, they may need some coming together of ministries in the north, so that those are more adequately provided.

I have another question spinning off the employment equity one we have got into now, and which raised some concern in the north that perhaps you might want to respond to and help me as I try to deal with it. That is the reaction that comes in many smaller communities where government jobs are seen as the good jobs in the communities. They pay well. They usually have a bit more security. There are some benefits attached. When we get into the whole area of employment equity, and in the north particularly where we are trying to attract and hire bilingual employees, the so-called white Anglo person who has lived in these communities for a long time is beginning to feel somewhat on the outside. There is a reverse discrimination charge coming back at us and I need to be able to deal with that. I wonder if there is anything you could share with me that would help me in that.

Hon Miss Martel: The entire government, not only our ministry, has responded in the last number of years since 1986, since Bill 8 was passed. It has responded in order to provide services in designated areas, both in terms of written material and verbal contact. A client has been able to communicate directly in the French language to staff in the ministry offices. Not all our offices are designated bilingual. Certainly at the head office, because we are situated in Sudbury and because of the large francophone population in the community, we make a great effort to deal directly with the clients coming to us on the projects as people who can serve them in their own language.

I have seen that kind of reaction before, of people getting the sense that every government job is now a bilingual job. We make it very clear in our advertisements in the paper and in our competitions which are designated and which are not, so people know when they are applying that if it is designated they will be expected to have a certain capacity both in the written and oral French language. I hasten to add that this is not in any way, shape or form the vast majority of our jobs across our ministry.

In designated areas we make efforts to have those positions designated so that people will be able to obtain service. The argument I hear every now and then about all government jobs is that now you have to be French. It is just not true. It is not true in my ministry and it is not true across any of the other ministries.

Mr Martin: It is a very real problem in that it creates a blockage to some very creative, forward-looking legislation and initiatives. It is not just bilingual, but you have to be bilingual, a woman and perhaps a first nations person and all that. It would be good for those groups as they attempt to get into the workforce if the government were to undertake a public relations campaign to dispel some of the myths out there around that. For example, what are the percentages presently in place? What levels are you attempting to achieve? When will that be achieved?

1550

In the meantime, what are the percentages of jobs being advertised that require certain qualifications above and beyond the regular qualifications for a job, actually, in any ministry in the north? It seems to me from living up there, dealing with this from day to day and the calls that come into my office, that there is something lacking in the communication exercise that needs to be done.

Hon Miss Martel: I think part of the way I hope that will be rectified will come with the employment equity consultations Ms Ziemba will take on. The figures on unemployment for all those categories of people you talked about, the disabled, people of colour, natives, is shocking, but all those people are productive and can be very productive not only in the public service but in the private sector as well.

As we have gone through the consultation document in cabinet with Elaine Ziemba with respect to why the government feels it needs to move on this and why we are going to have the very broadest consultation we can have, it is because we need to get those figures out to people. Once people see the rates of participation, which are extremely low in all those categories, and understand the impact it has on people's dignity when they know they are productive and can be part of the system, but have never found a way to break in, I think we will start to reverse some of the mindset you are talking about. Frankly, it is tragic what is happening and people have a role to play.

I very much support the legislation and the work that will go on. By that exercise, as she moves about the province, people will start to realize just what we are dealing with and why the government feels it is necessary to have mandatory employment equity.

I want to make a point on one of our programs I talked a little bit about yesterday, but I will re-emphasize it today, and that is our northern training opportunities program where we are setting money aside as a wage subsidy program to encourage employers to hire young people so they will stay in the north in the long term. I mentioned it yesterday but I will mention it again. We have a special component that is to deal strictly with people who are disabled, people of colour and native students in particular who would otherwise have a difficult time getting into the job market. We have targeted some money so they can work with employers and try to get into that market for the first time.

We are very proud of that component of the program, because I think we are going to make some major changes in attitudes on both sides, on the side of employers and some of those groups that have been left out. There was the pilot project we had going on in Dryden -- I should not say "pilot project" -- the employment this summer in Dryden to bring native students to work for the local police force. That was very important, because those groups would have had fears on both sides in terms of dealing with each other and probably a real lack of understanding sometimes.

Those are the kinds of things we are doing. It is probably not enough. We have a long way to go. We need to do a lot more work, but I hope that through that kind of program and through what will happen with the employment equity consultations, we will start to bring about a change of mind.

The Chair: Just for clarification for the committee, is that a Solicitor General program or a Northern Development program?

Hon Miss Martel: Northern Development.

Mr Brown: I would like to go back for a moment and talk about northern highways. In response to one of the questions we filed, the staff has answered that there is a long-term plan being developed by your ministry and the Ministry of Transportation. We are interested in the time frame of that plan. You mention you are going to increase the four-laning in the north by 733 kilometres. We are wondering within what time frame you expect that to happen.

Hon Miss Martel: The first question we answered is how many kilometres in the next four years. I am going back to the answers we provided to you and I assume that is what you are referring to, Mike?

Mr Brown: Yes.

Hon Miss Martel: It is a question of how many kilometres of highway in northern Ontario will be four-laned in the next four years. We talked about the percentage that was four-laned at this point and the long-range plan. That plan, which was extremely expensive, has been looked at by the Ministry of Transportation and ourselves because we will fund it. It is my understanding that to do all we are talking about would probably be 20 years.

I am looking at Don Moorhouse who deals with the transportation side and he is nodding that it is 20 years. That leads to the question I have been asked before in here about whether that can be accelerated or whether we have any funds to accelerate and bring it up to a shorter time period. In terms of straight money alone in this fiscal year I would not have any money to bite into that a little bit more and increase the work we could do in the upcoming fiscal year.

Mr Brown: You are telling me the plan exists now and you have identified the priorities of what gets done first, in what order and where.

Hon Miss Martel: You would know that the ministry and ourselves release every year a five-year capital plan which outlines the work we intend to do. In our planning we certainly go beyond that. We are constantly determining where we are going to be looking at those areas that have been identified as priorities because of safety factors or high volumes of traffic, etc. We have done work all the way through, although all we publish is the first five years and attach as best as we can the volume of money required to do that.

Mr Brown: I am really asking, though, is the 20-year plan available?

Hon Miss Martel: We would only release publicly what we would do in five years so that both municipalities and companies may have some idea of where they are going to bid in the next couple of years. They could take a look at it and understand what work we are planning so they can make their own plans.

Part of the problem is that it changes. We are okay on the five because those would be areas we have identified, that we have figured, that we have funding put aside for and for which a lot of the planning work has been done. Consultations with communities may be well under way. When you start to go beyond that, I would be reluctant to release anything because it would start to change.

It would change, for example, if areas along other routes became identified as a priority because of a higher volume or safety problems or if we started to run into difficulties. Say, for example, we had to negotiate with a native community somewhere along that route and we started to run into difficulties about land transfers. We would be reluctant to put out anything more than that because people would assume that is what the plan is. If we did not follow it, there would certainly be criticism that we have something that is public and we are not following it, so why are we backtracking? I do not think we would want to go much farther than five years to ensure that what is out there is what we can realistically meet as a target.

Mr Brown: I am a little surprised at the answer because I would expect that if it was in the public domain, and it was made clear that it was a proposal, that would allow communities, interested parties and people in the areas to have some input into the ministry to suggest changes.

In regard to the concerns you are expressing and some of the things the community might want to input, if that was out in the public domain clearly as a proposal and clearly as something that changes, I think it would stimulate some discussion and some of the communities may see some of the problems the ministry encounters with the four-laning. Every northern MPP would tell you his constituents want his particular portion of the Trans-Canada or whatever four-laned tomorrow.

Having it in the public domain may help your planning process. I understand it makes sense to have a five-year plan so you can do the appropriate environmental assessments in an orderly fashion. I wonder, because the task is so immense, whether it would not be better for northerners to have input into a long-term plan.

Hon Miss Martel: We may want to do that through a process that gets input in terms of, "If we had X amount of money and could do all this, what would you like to see done first?" But people do have input into the process. For each of the areas we move through, an environmental assessment has to go on. People have a right and should exercise that right to comment on the changes that are occurring and what their concerns are.

1600

Mr Brown: I understand that.

Hon Miss Martel: My worry would still be that whatever you put out there would, I suspect, become the plan. It would be very hard if you had to make changes to it, to tell people what we targeted to be year six is now going to be seven or eight because we have to expropriate some land and we are going to end up at the Ontario Municipal Board to do that and it is going to be a much longer delay. You raise people's expectations going much beyond five. We can control what happens in that five to a great extent. The work would already be going on at the same time as we released the documents. Once you get beyond that, it is going to become very fuzzy and things will change.

I do not know that you would want to have 20 years out there telling people what you think you would like to do, when it may very well change after year five. In year six you have set up people's expectations and you are not in a position to do that for a variety of other reasons and there is another route you want to take instead. I do not think I would want it much longer than that because it is just not that clear and is subject to too much change from within in terms of our own financial resources, our resources of technicians and engineers, how fast or slow the environmental assessment process is working, if we are into discussions with native communities, if we have municipalities that are objecting, etc.

Mr Brown: I guess we disagree. The other question in this pertains, as the member for Sault Ste Marie mentioned, to the section of Highway 69 south of the Parry Sound district. What involvement does your ministry have in the area south of the Parry Sound district on 69, which is probably the most treacherous stretch of highway in this province? Do you fund that? Is it straight Ministry of Transportation? What input do you have into what they are doing, because although it affects northerners directly, it is not within the north.

Hon Miss Martel: Right. On how we work with MTO, the planning process and where our jurisdiction ends in terms of funding and where theirs begins, I would ask Don Moorhouse, our regional director in the Thunder Bay office, if he would not mind coming forward. He deals directly with his counterparts in MTO putting together the five years, but also on a lot of planning issues. Don, would that be okay?

The Acting Chair (Mr Johnson): Don, could you identify yourself and your position for Hansard, please?

Mr Moorhouse: My name is Don Moorhouse. I am in the Thunder Bay office as the regional director. I have a special responsibility in our ministry for transportation matters to do highways, roads and airports. As I understand it, you are wondering about our interest in the portion of Highway 69 south of the district boundary of Parry Sound, which is covered by MTO. It looks after that. Our interest, of course, is in the entire facility and we have passed along our concerns about moving that project -- the whole four-laning along it -- as fast as possible. To some extent they have been pressured through ways other than just our ministry. They are making plans to proceed northerly as fast as their funds and resources allow. We talk about that when we get together on a regular basis and we have every assurance that they are doing it.

Mr Brown: How many kilometres of northern highways would be four-laned this year, which is the year we are discussing?

Mr Moorhouse: "This year" being 1991?

Mr Brown: Yes. What is the answer?

Mr Moorhouse: The project that is under way right now is through Nobel. I believe that is three or four kilometres. To my knowledge -- I am quickly running through the rest of the north -- I do not think there is any other project under way that involves four-laning in this fiscal year.

Hon Miss Martel: Do you need information on planning, or just the actual construction?

Mr Brown: No, what has actually been done. It is too soon to ask you what is going to be done precisely next year. Moving along, one of the most important things your ministry does is act as an advocacy ministry among the other ministries of government. I wonder what input you have had regarding what I perceive and most of my colleagues would perceive as a government policy of high energy prices.

We see quite clearly that with the 3.4 cents a litre added to the price of gas, the people who have the longest drives to market of anybody in the province -- if we just forget about the constituents for just one little second, although we never want to do that, and talk about the business community that has to compete in this sort of world, obviously the distances of the north make the cost of getting the goods to market a little bit greater and getting the goods our consumers use back to the north a little bit greater. You travel over far greater distances; therefore the fuel consumption is greater and the costs associated with fuel impact more greatly on northerners, just in terms of competitiveness. I wonder what you have been suggesting in terms of your ministry's policy to the Minister of Energy and to the Treasurer in regard to the costs of energy in the north, specifically fuel and gasoline.

Hon Miss Martel: I think I mentioned yesterday that we have done two things in our ministry because we wanted direct ownership of the matter. Number one, we were interested in looking at two other jurisdictions where there had been equalization of gas prices, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and developing terms of reference within the ministry in order to have a study done about the impacts of equalization there. Who benefited? Was it the consumers or the gas companies themselves? We will fund that and we will have direct ownership of the results of that once it is complete.

Second, we also very much wanted to look at a model that had been developed in Thompson, Manitoba, with respect to a co-op gas station there and took it upon ourselves as well to say to our other colleagues that we would take that project on and look for a community where there was a sufficient population and an interest in trying to start up a co-operative gas outlet. One of my staff persons right now is involved in that project and has approached several communities that have an outlet that is a co-op now and is interested in working with us and that particular community, whichever it is, to see if we can develop that further.

Mr Brown: My question was not really about equalization. I think you pursued that quite well with the member for Cochrane North. What I am talking about is a 30% increase in provincial taxes on gasoline and fuel. Equalization is fine, but if it is equalization to the highest number, it is not much good. You have increased the costs to northern transportation significantly by a 3.4-cent increase in the provincial tax on gasoline. Whether you are in southern Ontario or northern Ontario, you are going to pay the 3.4 cents. I know you are going to tell me about licence fees, but that does not help the trucker much. How do you rationalize that? How does that make us more competitive?

Hon Miss Martel: No one likes increased taxes. By the same token, there are services in this province that we all have to pay for. How you do that is a difficult task for any government to determine.

Of course, I was not particularly thrilled with the fact that there was an increase in tax with respect to gas in the last budget, nor was my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food very excited about the fact that there was an increase in cigarettes, which directly affects his tobacco farmers, whom we all hear from. We all lobby on behalf of our various constituents, but we also all understand that somehow or another we all have to pay for what we have in this province, and we have to search for the best way to do that without hitting one sector of the economy, one region, a very severe blow and not hitting any other region at all.

Mr Brown: That is exactly what I am telling you.

Hon Miss Martel: But I would say to you, Mike, that I would probably hear the same argument from people who live in eastern Ontario as well who have to drive very long distances, not only for work, for example, but to search for medical services. Those were certainly some of the arguments that came from our members from the east, that this also hit on them. They did not think it was just a northern issue.

If there was a nicer way to do things to raise money, I would certainly like to know about it, but the fact of the matter is, the Treasurer has to make some tough decisions about how to raise some money. As a member of the cabinet, whether I like it or do not like it, I also have to understand very clearly that there are other services and moneys I go to ask of him that have to be paid for in some way, so he looks for the best way to do that without unfairly penalizing any group of citizens.

I do not know what else I can tell you. That is the way it is. That is the same process we will have to go through when we get into next year. As he said very clearly in the House today, there will be taxes. We will have no choice, and people will be very unhappy by that, but there is also a level of service that people demand and expect, and to meet those needs, the money has to come from somewhere; revenues that are coming in and also people's taxes. It is not a nice way to do things, but it is what every government has to face.

1610

Mr Brown: At a time when you increase the provincial tax by 3.4 cents, you drop the Transportation budget in northern Ontario. Those two factors --

Hon Miss Martel: We did not drop the Transportation budget this year.

Mr Brown: By a million bucks.

Hon Miss Martel: No, no, that was on the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.

Mr Brown: No. We could maybe get somebody to clarify that, but --

Mr Wood: For five years your government said --

The Chair: The Chair is feeling awfully lonely with this dialogue. You could make it interesting for me by going through the Chair. Mike, you have the floor.

Mr Brown: Thank you, Mr Chair. I am very interested in the choice, and the choice was that we are going to drive energy costs up. The same choice is being made with Ontario Hydro, that we are going to drive the cost of electrical power up. Those are choices that directly impact on the north, more seriously than on any other part of the province.

My people in Mindemoya cannot get on the subway. My people in Mindemoya cannot get on the bus. Those do not exist. They have to use their cars. There is no option. It is the same with my people in Gore Bay, who cannot convert to natural gas because there is none. Your policy is predicated on conversion and doing all kinds of things we cannot do in any event.

I suggest to you that the government, with its high energy policy, is hurting the north's competitiveness and the ability of our people to have the same kind of standard of living that exists in southern Ontario. I am asking you, will you work to reduce that? For example, you could ask the Treasurer not to proceed with the 1.7-cent increase in the tax on gasoline at the end of December.

Hon Miss Martel: I could do that, but I will state categorically in here that I will not do that.

Mr Brown: I thought maybe you would say that.

Hon Miss Martel: We would also have a net revenue loss we would have to find somewhere else in the system, and someone else's service and someone else's ministry will also be affected by that, and someone else in the public will be very unhappy because we will be withdrawing a service or looking for an increased tax somewhere else to make up for that revenue shortfall.

I hear you talking about driving up the price of electrical costs in the province, and I remind you that a big chunk of that increase is also to pay for Darlington, which was not paid by previous governments, which is a burden we are left with now to deal with.

Mr Brown: That will work for this year, but it is not going to work for any other year, and you are predicting 12% next year and double digits the next year. You can only blame Darlington so often. Once will work; more it will not.

Hon Miss Martel: Then I will use it to blame it now for this fiscal year.

Mr Brown: Okay, that is fine.

Hon Miss Martel: You would like to argue that it only penalizes the north. I have certainly heard your colleague from Renfrew North talk about sawmills in his area and how this was going to make an impact on competitiveness. There are lots of problems, I remind you, and lots of things that are impacting competitiveness in the north that have nothing to do with energy prices. The sawmills we have been trying to save in northern Ontario have not had a problem of energy prices. Their problem has been a 15% softwood lumber tax --

Mr Brown: It has gone.

Hon Miss Martel: They still have to pay, because the United States at this point in time is trying to appeal. If you talk to all those sawmills, you will find out they are putting their money otherwise targeted for 15% aside in a security because they were concerned they were going to have to pay it. So they have seen no change in their financial situation as a result of that policy announced by the feds.

They are having a terrible time with the high value of the Canadian dollar. It is wiping out not only them but a number of the mines I have to deal with, and there is a tremendous problem with interest rates. It is only in the last number of months they have declined. If you want to talk about competitiveness and who is getting nailed and by whom --

Mr Brown: But you cannot do anything about Mulroney. You can do something about your own shop.

Hon Miss Martel: -- that has been the biggest problem we have seen in northern Ontario in this last fiscal year. That has been the biggest problem across all the groups I have dealt with in this last fiscal year.

Let me go back to the question of energy. I met with the Ontario Mining Association about two months ago. We talked in general terms about some of the problems they could see coming. I asked them if they would submit to me some of their estimates in terms of the increased energy costs and what that would mean for them. I asked Pat Reid again when we were in Halifax in September if he would give that to us, and we do not have that information yet. I am quite prepared to take a look at what is happening and understand the impact, but I also need to receive the information and as yet that is still outstanding. I know the assistant deputy minister on the mines side has certainly made that request as well.

But I can say to you, in terms of competitiveness in this last fiscal year, the problems we have had are not problems you relate to in terms of the 1% a litre increase or the Hydro rates; it has certainly been a whole bunch of other factors that have been very difficult to deal with.

Mr Brown: We are looking for the future.

The Chair: I would like to move to Mr Turnbull now, if I may.

Mr Turnbull: Just to continue the question that was asked in the House today with respect to the proposed air service to Kenora, can you tell me what you consider was wrong with the present air service to Kenora and why a Dash-8 is needed?

Hon Miss Martel: Yes, I can. Currently we operate Twin Otters into Kenora. The Twin Otters are not pressurized. They do not have a hostess service. They do not have a washroom.

Very early on in my mandate, we were lobbied by the airport transportation commission in Kenora, along with a number of businesses, travel agencies, the mayor, the local member, and others to see whether or not we could put Dash-8 service into that community. It was certainly their feeling that there was a big enough population to support it, that it would help on the tourism side, and that instead of people driving to Winnipeg or Thunder Bay to catch a Dash-8, as they were doing, they would get on a Dash-8 if it was landing and moving in and out of Kenora.

At the time, in December, we looked at it and we did not have any extra planes at that point to put on, and I did not want to do it at that particular time because I was concerned there would be a number of other communities that may want service as well. We wrote back and told them no. That was the letter your leader referred to today.

The community came back to me. They lobbied us fiercely again and asked us to reconsider and asked us to look at their concerns, and we agreed to do that. We agreed to take a good review, take a good look at it and see what could be done.

We then entered into some discussions with the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission to see whether in fact there was a way we could provide Dash-8 service into Kenora, and in doing so, could we look at other communities along our present routes that may be in need of additional service as well?

ONTC came back to me some months later with a plan to move into a number of communities, to double up, because in some communities we are already flying Dash-8s, but to provide more flights into those communities and to add on new communities. They said to me that clearly it was their feeling that, given the communities we would go into on the routes, we would be able to break even in the first year and make some money in the second. It was on that basis, that we would not be requiring a subsidy to move in and out of Kenora and the other locations along the route, that I agreed we should go ahead and run this.

Mr Turnbull: You suggest you were lobbied by the community. Is this the approved method, that lobbying from a community will get anything nowadays from your government?

Hon Miss Martel: You accuse us of not consulting; you accuse us of consulting and not listening to people. I guess I am big enough to admit that sometimes I have made a mistake. When the community representatives came to me, they said they thought I had made a mistake, that I had not looked at the situation seriously enough, that they had some good reasons why they thought a Dash-8 would work in the community. I agreed to review it. I do not make any apologies for that.

Mr Turnbull: You indicated in the press release when you announced a service that you have market research. We have not seen that market research. All you are telling us about is lobbying efforts.

Hon Miss Martel: I do not think that is the only thing I said. I said to you very clearly I asked ONTC, which runs the planes, to take a good, hard look at whether or not we could make any money. Based on the fact that we have been in the airline business for many years now in northern Ontario, I trust their judgement in terms of making important decisions about whether or not we can make money.

1620

Mr Turnbull: Three airlines have flown into there with large planes, two of them with Dash-8s, and they have lost money on that route and they have pulled out. There are two airplanes per day provided by norOntair and three by Bearskin Air, and their average load is seven passengers. How do you think a 37-passenger plane is miraculously going to pull this, when three other airlines have tried large airliners and they have failed and pulled out of that route?

Hon Miss Martel: There are two points. You would not have the rest of the routes that those planes might have been flying on. You are only talking about going in and out of Kenora. Our planes are not just going to go in and out of Kenora and on to Thunder Bay and stop, but they are going to travel a whole east-west pattern across the north which will pick up people all along the way, which is the route on which we feel can break even.

Mr Turnbull: And drive people out of business at the same time, private industry.

Hon Miss Martel: I think there are a couple of things you do not know. First of all --

Mr Turnbull: There are a lot of things I don't know. I don't know how you came up with this ridiculous document called Agenda for People.

Hon Miss Martel: Why don't you let me answer the question since you have raised it? First of all, Bearskin Air, which you are so concerned about in terms of being driven out of business, right now operates our norOntair planes on our behalf. In fact, they receive a very generous contract to do that.

Mr Brown: On a competitive basis.

Mr Turnbull: It is a short-term contract.

Hon Miss Martel: No, we just renewed it. I am going to ask Peter Dyment to come to the microphone, but there are a couple of other things I am going to say. The other thing, because you have expressed such a concern about this competitor, is that when we let that contract to Bearskin to fly our norOntair planes in and out of Kenora, its representatives also signed a contract which said very clearly they would not run Bearskin planes against the norOntair planes in and out of Kenora. They have been doing that in direct violation of a contract they signed with us for the last four years.

Mr Turnbull: You disapprove of private enterprise trying to make a living.

Hon Miss Martel: No. They have directly broken a contract they signed with us. That says something to me. I do not think that is quite correct. You may think it is appropriate, but I do not.

Mr Turnbull: I have to tell you that with seven passengers per plane, the only thing that makes any sense is a small plane, and it has been shown by private industry. I have yet to see any government in the western world, and definitely in the eastern world, which can make any money out of flying large machines into remote areas when private enterprise cannot manage to make any money. Are you guaranteeing that there will be no loss on this route?

Hon Miss Martel: We said very clearly to the community that we would give them a chance that Air Ontario did not. Air Ontario, for example, ran that plane in there for two months and then discontinued the service. They did not even give the community a chance to be sure that people would use the plane. When I made my announcement, I said very clearly that we would run this for 18 to 24 months. Because people in the community lobbied me and said they felt they would be able to pack those planes, we would give the community the benefit of the doubt during those two years and see whether they did fill the planes. I think that was an important decision.

Mr Turnbull: What is the mandate of norOntair?

Hon Miss Martel: The mandate of the ONTC, which runs norOntair along with our other buses, planes, trains and ferry services, is to provide safe and efficient transportation services in northern Ontario. We would do that in areas where the private sector as well has no interest in coming in.

Mr Turnbull: But the private sector has an interest in coming in.

Hon Miss Martel: No, it does not; that is the problem. Bearskin Air is very much aware of the fact that the community wanted Dash-8 service. It was no secret. It was made very clear in the community that they were lobbying us for Dash-8 service. The community also asked Bearskin about the possibility of their putting on a Dash-8 and Bearskin did not want to do that. That is their business.

The community came to us, after I had said no, and asked me to reconsider and to review the situation. I talked to the ONTC. We put down two routes we felt we could run without subsidy that would make money. We told the community we would give them the benefit of the doubt, that we would run the plane for 18 to 24 months and then it would be up to them to be sure we had done the right thing. We have given them the chance to do that.

Mr Turnbull: Two months before you agreed to this service, Bearskin put on contract new planes, 19-seaters which they felt were optimized to this route so they could give improved service but still come under the criterion that they did not need a flight attendant so they could keep their operating costs down. There is no way you can run a 37-seat plane as efficiently as a 19-seat plane. At the moment they are running 14-seat planes and they have seven seats occupied, on average, per flight.

It takes the most incredible leap of faith to believe that suddenly you are going to have all these extra bodies materialize. In the meantime, you are saying there is a contract with Bearskin Air. What is going to happen to the service people displaced as a result of running in competition with them?

Hon Miss Martel: They have been running in competition with us for four years directly in violation of a contract and I do not find that very appropriate, so I am not prepared to entertain the question that we are somehow doing something unfair to them. When I made my announcement in Thunder Bay, I made it very clear that in our discussions with Bearskin it had indicated that four to six pilots would be lost. I gave my commitment on that day that if that was the case we would hire those four to six pilots into our air service. Strangely enough, after --

Mr Turnbull: It is not just the pilots, it is the engineers.

Hon Miss Martel: I am not finished. The day after we were told that was the only loss we could expect, and told that by the owner of Bearskin himself, it then appeared in the paper that suddenly 25 people were going to be lost.

Mr Turnbull: That is what the employees believe.

Hon Miss Martel: It was directly contrary to what their owner had told us only a day before. The same day we made this announcement I also had staff from the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission who were meeting with Bearskin to outline the potential routes and to go through with them the details of my announcement. We were very surprised, frankly, to see a note of 25.

We have been meeting with Bearskin, and we will have a second meeting this Friday, to determine --

Mr Turnbull: What about the employees?

Hon Miss Martel: Let me finish -- to determine what the actual loss will be. We have no evidence to date that the loss will be the 25 as Bearskin has tried to maintain in the paper. Peter Dyment is the director at ONTC. He has not been involved directly in the negotiations, but certainly staff have. At any point, Peter, if there is information you want to add, please feel free to jump in.

Mr Dyment: You are doing well.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, you said in the House you would meet with the employees.

Hon Miss Martel: Yes.

Mr Turnbull: We have here in the audience Paul Straiton, who is not here on behalf of the company. He went to great pains to tell us he is not here on behalf of the company. He is among a group of employees who are most concerned about losing their jobs. He is here with the indulgence of this committee. I suggest that perhaps we should ask him to the microphone, as well as your ministry official, so we can discuss this sensibly.

Hon Miss Martel: That is fine. You will know as well that we have a meeting with the employees in Thunder Bay on December 5. I thought I would get that on the record as well.

The Chair: I will treat that as a request. Does the minister have any objection?

Hon Miss Martel: No.

The Chair: Any objection from the committee? What is the gentleman's name?

Mr Turnbull: Paul Straiton.

The Chair: Mr Straiton, if you would like to come forward to the microphone, I believe the committee may wish to ask you one or two questions. I must indicate, Mr Turnbull, that he would be here to answer questions. He is not here to make a statement.

Mr Turnbull: I understand that. In the meantime, minister, my understanding is this --

Mr Martin: Before we get into this --

The Chair: Do you have a point of order?

Mr Martin: Yes, I do. My point of order, Mr Chair, is that I am wondering how this is going to proceed. Is Mr Turnbull going to go the next half hour or are his 10 minutes almost up? Do we get a shot at this? What is the process going to be?

Mr Turnbull: I would suggest --

The Chair: Excuse me, gentlemen. First of all, let's put our guest at ease. Mr Martin was not implying he wants to take a shot at you, sir. Mr Turnbull has 10 minutes remaining in his time allocation. With the indulgence of the committee, he has agreement to be asked some questions. So when Mr Turnbull has completed his round, then we will proceed to you in accordance with rotation. If you wish to interview the gentleman and he wishes to be interviewed, then we will continue. Please proceed, Mr Turnbull.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Straiton, in our meeting earlier today you expressed a concern and said you were speaking expressly on behalf of the employees and that it was not at the suggestion of your employer that you come here. You have arrived at the number of 25 jobs estimated to be lost. Can you elaborate a little bit for the minister?

Mr Straiton: I can give you a rough estimation. I was chatting with the office in between the present session in the Legislature. They received a call from the television station in Thunder Bay to elaborate on that and they are putting that down on paper, so I am not going to give you any specific numbers unless I give you numbers different from what they say.

But just to give you an idea, there is more to operating an airline than just the pilots. There are people behind the scenes: maintenance people and aircraft maintenance engineers, ticket agents, reservations agents, baggage handlers, accounting people and salespeople. It takes a lot of people to keep an airline in the air. For example, we average one man-hour, if I can use that expression in this day and age, or person-hour, of maintenance for every hour the aircraft flies. If the aircraft flies for seven hours, it requires seven hours of maintenance. That is where these numbers come from.

Mr Turnbull: If your people had to do the maintenance on a Dash-8, are they trained and capable of doing that?

1630

Mr Straiton: No, they are not. Because of flight safety considerations, the Department of Transport requires every maintenance engineer to be licensed on specific types of aircraft. There are a lot of details involved with that and I do not know all of them. Essentially, in order to work on a Dash-8, you require a Dash-8 endorsement. My understanding is that requires a considerable amount of training and there is a considerable amount of cost involved.

Mr Turnbull: You commented earlier today with respect to the load the ministry is projecting and that it can make money on this run. Could you comment on that?

Mr Straiton: I will use my calculations. I am not an accounting person. I am not an expert in the financial aspect of the airlines. I took the present norOntair loads, the present Twin Otter loads, the present fares and the projected schedule of the Dash-8. The Thunder Bay-Kenora portion of the run is 248 miles one way. When you are in the airline business you have to look at the sector. It is the sector that makes or loses money; it is not the whole run. I do not have any cost figures on the Dash-8. I used another aircraft of a similar type. The figure is a guess. I estimated $1 million to $3 million a year is required to subsidize.

We are in the process of requesting specific information. Unfortunately, because I have to do my own job, I have to work on this and I have my personal life, we have not had the opportunity to dig up all those concrete figures. But we are working on it.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Straiton, how do you and the other employees feel about the idea of taxpayers' dollars being used to subsidize a competitor?

Mr Straiton: Quite simply, it is unfair. I feel I work hard for the company and for our customers. We try to have a customer service attitude. I have no objection to paying taxes. I feel there is a responsibility to keep the country running. But I think it is unfair when the tax dollars we pay come back and slap us in the face.

Mr Turnbull: In October 1991 you wrote that the Ministry of Northern Development is committed to helping entrepreneurs undertake new ideas which will translate into prosperity and growth for northern Ontario. I would like you to justify your decision of putting government dollars into this venture when there is a for-profit -- that awful word to the New Democrats -- airline which is viable at the moment. Why are you going to compete against it? Does this not undermine the whole idea of encouraging free enterprise?

Hon Miss Martel: You seem to forget that for the last four years Bearskin Air has competed directly against us in direct violation of a contract it signed with us with respect to the Twin Otter service. The Twin Otters norOntair flies in and out of Kenora are staffed and maintained by Bearskin employees. They do that on contract with us. When that contract was signed Bearskin agreed it would not run its flights in against ours because it had that contract already. They have been doing that for the last four years.

Mr Turnbull: What did you do about this, Minister?

Hon Miss Martel: There was enough room for both of us in that particular corridor, so we turned a blind eye. But I find it very strange that you would not consider that to be a little bit of a strange procedure or unfair, when in fact we have a contract with them that is generous, that meets all the needs, that allows all the employees to continue to work in and out of that corridor and in direct violation of that, it is okay for a private carrier to do whatever it wants. If that had been a government plane doing that, you would have gone crazy.

Mr Turnbull: I think it quite bizarre that governments are spending money putting services in when a private entrepreneur is prepared to take this on. How you can possibly justify this is beyond me, at a time when we have cuts in health care, we have education absolutely in a tailspin. Every single day we hear the cuts you are making, cuts that frankly we said you should have been making six months ago when the budget came in. Notwithstanding that, you are still charging ahead, spending taxpayers' dollars. I think it is a complete flight of fantasy that you are going to break even or make a profit.

I remind you that your own Premier said during the last election that David Peterson was a liar, and you have called the Conservatives today clowns. I hope you will remember that when you see what happens with this airline and see that it does not bring a profit in when three private airlines using Dash-8s have pulled out of there.

Hon Miss Martel: I remind you that of the three private airlines, the latest one that was in there went in and out in two months. In my opinion, and certainly in the opinion of the community members who came to see me about it, they did not give adequate chance for them even to show that the airline could be used properly. I would like to ask Peter Dyment to talk specifically about some of the layoffs and about the contract, because I think there is some information there that committee members should have as well.

The Chair: I am sure Mr Dyment would be very interesting, but this series of questioning has come to a conclusion and I am now moving to Mr Martin.

Are you finished with Mr Straiton?

Mr Martin: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate the indulgence of the committee.

Mr Johnson: Just one minute, Mr Chair. It may be that Mr Martin is finished with Mr Straiton but some other members of the caucus may --

The Chair: It is not my intention to have him sit there for the next hour.

Mr Johnson: Do we have the next hour, Mr Chair? I am happy to know that. I did not realize that.

Mr Martin: It is not really a very uncomfortable seat. If he wants to sit there, there may be a question that will come up in the process of my asking this question.

The Chair: We are stretching procedures here and I am giving wide latitude. If Mr Johnson has a question for Mr Straiton, then I would ask him to place it first.

Mr Johnson: Yes, as a matter of fact, I do have a question. I am glad to know Mr Straiton indicated that he is not an expert in some of the things he has commented on, but I would like to know just what exactly his job is.

Mr Straiton: First of all, let me tell you how I got here.

The Chair: By plane.

Mr Straiton: Yes, that is true. Let me tell you how I got my job with the employee group, first of all. We were sitting in our meeting with 50 or 60 of the employees talking about this thing and who was going to come and represent the employees. My job with the company is sales representative, and because I deal with the public a lot, I guess they felt they would co-opt me into being in this position. Prior to that, my background was in dispatch, involving charter quotations and co-ordinating flights and numerous other tasks. I have also been involved with accounts receivable, bill collecting. I deal a lot with the native people in the north and have some knowledge of the Ojibway language.

Mr Johnson: What I want to know is, what is your job specifically with the airline? You said sales. Could you elaborate on that some, because I am not sure I understand exactly what you mean.

1640

Mr Straiton: Basically it is a public relations type of job and it involves dealing with problems that happen during the course of the day. It involves talking to customers, trying to drum up new business, and it involves having a number of crazy jobs thrown at you, such as, say --

Mr Martin: Lobbying the government.

Mr Straiton: No, such as setting up the mail contract to the native communities in the north.

Our company has a policy of being very open in terms of ideas from the employees. For example, one of the ideas I suggested to the company relates to your previous discussion about minority people working in jobs. We deal with a lot of native people, and I feel that our company should get more native people involved. This is something that has not been finalized, but I will give you the details as long as you guys do not tell everybody else.

The Chair: I am sorry. You are being recorded for more than posterity at this point. This is going on Hansard.

Mr Straiton: Okay, it is not a big deal. We are working --

The Chair: No, I am advising you for your own interests. When I hear that statement, as Chair I feel compelled to advise you this is a matter for the public record.

Mr Johnson: I think Mr Straiton has more or less answered the question I asked anyway. I want to thank him for coming here.

The Chair: We will allow him to finish, as we will anyone else who is before us, as long as it does not expire your time.

Mr Straiton: I would just like to say that the idea I put forward was, let's get some native people involved with our company more and more in terms of skilled technical jobs, such as pilots. We are working on a program whereby we can get something like that happening. I do not want to get into the details, but we are working on it. That was an idea that came from me. I said, "Let's try it," and they looked at it and said, "Okay." So the company has a policy of listening to what the employee says, and it is a very entrepreneurial attitude among the employees.

In this particular case it may appear to you that, because I am a sales person, I am here on behalf of the company, but I am not. I am here on my own accord. The fact that I am here and the fact that I am a salesperson just happens to coincide with the fact that salespeople tend to be the ones who talk. The mechanics, for example, know what they are doing with their hands. They are expert; I could not do it. But they do not like talking.

The Chair: On Mr Martin's interjection that you were a lobbyist, that is not true.

Mr Straiton: That is not true.

The Chair: I appreciate your correcting the record. Mr Martin will be advised to put that in the form of a question in the future. Any further questions?

Mr Turnbull: Perhaps the Liberals have a question.

The Chair: We will call him back, Mr Turnbull. Thank you very much.

Mr Martin: My question is for Mr Dyment. I would like Mr Dyment to talk to us a little bit about the decision that was made regarding the viability of putting a Dash-8 into Kenora and the information we received that it may in fact lose money the first year but will become a money-maker the second year and subsequent years.

Mr Dyment: We fly right now two planes a day from Kenora to Thunder Bay, two Twin Otters, two frequencies, and we fly them by virtue of a contract with Bearskin. We have Bearskin pilots in those aircraft. We are paying them to fly them and we are paying Bearskin to maintain them. We fly those things from Kenora to Thunder Bay twice a day and then we fly Dash-8s from Thunder Bay east to Sault Ste Marie, to Sudbury. If anybody has flown in the north in the last year or two, he will know that those Dash-8s from Thunder Bay east are full. I tried to go to Dryden last week and I had to sit in a jump seat. They are full, and those of us who fly in the north know they are full.

Kenora made a petition to add Dash-8s. They said to us, "Those Twin Otters you are flying are noisy, they smell, you cannot fly out of the weather and they are not pressurized." Therefore, people just will not fly in them, and I think they are right. We in northern Ontario are convinced that Twin Otters have seen their day. Knowing that our Dash-8s from Thunder Bay east were full, we added Kenora and Winnipeg to the route. So all we are doing is taking our Twin Otters out of Kenora and inserting Dash-8s on a route we are flying anyhow. We are not changing times, we are simply changing the aircraft and putting a larger aircraft in.

Kenora has said the larger aircraft will attract passengers, and I think the airline industry recognizes that a Dash-8 will do a better job in attracting passengers than a smaller aircraft without a flight attendant and without a washroom.

We are flying that route from Winnipeg to Kenora to Thunder Bay. We are moving the Twin Otters, and that is all we are doing. We are not flying any more flights. We are not flying any less flights. We are not flying flights at any different times. We are simply putting a different aircraft in there, which should attract an awful lot of passengers going east and coming west.

We know there is a lot of traffic from Kenora driving to Winnipeg. We know there are Ontario civil servants taking that route. This should encourage them to fly. We will have a nice connection, same plane, right through to the east.

Mr Turnbull: Great idea, encouraging civil servants to fly and spend our money.

Hon Miss Martel: You do not know much about the north, Mr Turnbull, because it is pretty hard to drive to Toronto from Kenora. If you want to take the trip and learn about the north --

The Chair: Please.

Mr Wood: Go up and visit Kapuskasing once and a while. Go and see Ramsay or go and see some of the other places. You will know what the north is all about.

Mr Hayes: Mr Chair, please get a grip.

Mr Wood: And you complain about being called a clown.

The Chair: I believe the minister was referring to everybody in the House.

Mr Wood: I don't think so.

The Chair: It is occurring here. I would like everybody please to respect --

Mr Wood: It is occurring as a result of your partner.

The Chair: Mr Wood --

Mr Wood: Comments that he made, exactly.

The Chair: Mr Wood, are you prepared to shut up, please? I have asked you to come to order.

Mr Hayes: "Come to order" would be better than to say "Shut up."

The Chair: No, I have called order once. Pat, you are aware of that. Thank you. Please proceed.

Mr Dyment: We are simply adding Dash-8 aircraft in the north Thunder Bay cross section where Twin Otters are existing. We are leasing two aircraft in order to do this. We are leasing them for a two-year period so that we can assess the results of this additional flying. We are convinced the entire route is a commercial route and that we will not be burden on the taxpayer, that those Dash-8 aircraft will not be parasitic on the subsidized northern Ontario network.

We have further gone to Bearskin and said, "As a result of the changes in the Twin Otter contract, this is going to displace some pilots and some maintenance people, and we will cover their jobs." We will hire whoever is displaced, because we have to hire something like 31 people to fly these two planes. We have to hire more than one would have to fly the smaller planes because we have flight attendant considerations to make.

We have gone to them and said, "We will offer jobs to the people that we have displaced." Bearskin has said, "You are going to displace a lot more people than you think," and we have gone back to Bearskin and said: "Fine, give us the detail. We will negotiate an arrangement to accommodate those people as well."

We have had one meeting with Bearskin. We have another one scheduled for this coming Friday. I believe that is the day after tomorrow -- we lose track of time in the north sometimes too. The objective will be to accommodate anything that Bearskin has advised us is legitimate in terms of job loss. Now, if Bearskin is going to tell us that there is somebody up in Pikangikum who is going to lose a sales job, we are going to say, "That has nothing to do with what we are doing." We want to sort the chaff from the wheat, and we have made a commitment to accommodate job loss.

The net result should be that the north will be better served with air transport. Kenora will have a modern, contemporary aircraft to advertise. NorOntair will be indifferent financially to this additional flying. The net job impact in northern Ontario should be an increase in jobs, and we are convinced that this is a good move.

Interjection.

The Chair: Please wait for the gentleman to finish, Mr Turnbull.

Mr Turnbull: What he has just said about sorting the chaff from the wheat, is this the government policy?

The Chair: Mr Turnbull, I have not in two years named a member of this committee, so I will ask you, if you have a point of clarification, to put it in one sentence, but have the courtesy of allowing the deputant to at least finish his commentary.

Mr Dyment: We have one difficulty in this entire interaction, and that is that the Bearskin employees perhaps are not as fully informed as we in northern Ontario would like them to be about what is happening, and we do not have the vehicle to talk to Bearskin employees. They do not work for us and we cannot go to another employer's employees and say: "Look, this is what we want to talk about. This is what we want to discuss." At some point before the end of the year, we may have to do that. We may have to override Bearskin and talk to Bearskin's employees.

In the meantime, we are trying, through their employer, to assure them the job loss in northeastern and northwestern Ontario is extremely important to us and to the ministry. That is the focus of all our interaction right now: trying to preserve jobs, as a matter of fact trying to increase the number of jobs, in the north. I do not know how the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission can get that message to the employees through their employer. We are having difficulty.

1650

Mr Martin: I appreciate that clarification and the fact that you have taken time out of your schedule to be here today to answer questions and to speak to us about Ontario Northland. Transportation for those of us who live in the north is a big issue, probably one of the biggest as we look at developing an economic base on what we have and as we look into the future and see the turmoil coming as the base upon which we do business changes in a world that is changing rapidly.

We have seen in our communities the effect of the federal government's deregulation, for example, in Sault Ste Marie the cutback in services we used to expect as normal. Oft-times we feel like second class citizens because of the type of service we are offered under the guise of the free market system. I want you for a few minutes to share with us, if you could, some of the plans Ontario Northland has for the north re its infrastructure and transportation network as we move into the next century in a way that speaks to some hope and quality of life for those who work up there.

Mr Dyment: I will try briefly. We are in the transportation business. We have trucks, buses, boats, planes and trains. We learned early in the century that communication in the north was incomplete with just those transportation mediums and we had to get into the telecommunications business as well. We recognize we are in the communications business. We are linking the communities together and we are linking all those communities to the world. We are using trucks, buses, boats, planes and the telephone company to do that.

One of the realisms of the 19th century in the north, especially northeastern Ontario, is that there were three ingredients that caused the north to grow: the land itself, the settlers and Ontario Northland. When those three ingredients were put together, the north moved north of North Bay. We are as well, with the minister's urging, revisiting that particular element of our being in developing the north, being a catalyst in the north and doing things in the north that will show confidence in the north and help change the attitude from one of depression to one of more comfort living in this country. We are doing that by using our assets, building buildings and spurring development.

We are in the transportation business and we want to remain contemporary in the transportation business. We want to keep our rates equal to or less than the rates prevalent elsewhere. We want to show confidence in the north by being a good corporate citizen and putting physical things out there that make people realize there is somebody up here spending money who has confidence in this part of the country. Every dollar we generate is spent in northern Ontario. That in rough terms is our mandate.

Mr Martin: In terms of how you decide what you will do and where you will become involved, in the Kenora decision for example, you listened to the people of Kenora as they spoke to you about the possibility of developing a tourist industry if they had proper air service into that community. What networks do you use in the north to listen to and to communicate with the people who live up there in order to ascertain what you should do next?

Mr Dyment: We have the day-to-day experience of running transportation businesses where we are directly interacting with the people we serve. We also meet regularly with mayors, reeves, chambers of commerce in the case of the air business and travel agents. There are a variety of elements to our network. We like to keep in touch with the members of the north who represent the constituencies. Being such a vast country it is difficult to have face-to-face interaction, but that is what we attempt. For instance, I am going to spend the next two days in Moosonee and Moose Factory dealing with the boards of trade and the local municipal authorities to try to get the feel for how Ontario Northland is doing.

The Chair: I believe the minister wanted to make a brief comment.

Hon Miss Martel: Actually I was just following up on some of the assets you had talked about. Tony will not know this but we will be opening later on this month in Kirkland Lake which is an area -- I see the member here -- that has really had some severe problems and is depressed. Through ONTC we had the initiative to go in there and develop a bus terminal with a very nice restaurant in the hope of attracting service, having a very nice place for people who come to the community and increasing tourism.

We were pleased earlier this summer in Cochrane to open the new train station/hotel accommodation that ONTC put into place, in the same way to try to develop the tourist trade for people who are using the train to go up to Moosonee so that they have a very nice facility to stay in at night. They are making their presence felt in some of the areas that are the most economically depressed at this point in time in a way I do not see the private sector doing.

Mr Turnbull: I have a question for clarification that is directed to the minister with respect to the statement made that she will be sorting the wheat from the chaff and that she is making the assumption that in some way somebody who is a salesperson who has dared to speak out against the government --

Hon Miss Martel: That is not what was said, Mr Turnbull.

Mr Turnbull: Would you clarify what is the wheat and what is the chaff?

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Dyment said very clearly we were in negotiations right now with the president of Bearskin Air. We are trying to sort out which jobs will legitimately be lost because of this route and which jobs he may or may not suggest will be lost. It has nothing to do with this route or us putting a Dash-8 in there. We have on several occasions, because he has said publicly the airline will lose 20 to 25 jobs, asked him to give us evidence of that. We are waiting to get that. We hope this matter will be sorted out this Friday.

We are very interested and have said publicly we will accommodate those people who do lose their jobs directly because of our activity. We are not interested, though, in having other employees who have nothing to do with what we are doing suddenly looking to us to employ them. That is the difference.

The Chair: Mr Turnbull, you have your clarification and the committee has been kind enough to grant it. I now recognize Mr Ramsay.

Mr Ramsay: I will introduce a new subject, but I welcome Mr Dyment's presence and I might ask a couple of questions on ONTC transportation in the north before I get into that subject, if that is okay with the committee.

Mr Dyment, you mentioned in the responses to previous questions that possibly the Twin Otter planes had outlived their usefulness -- I am not sure that is a direct quote -- and that people in the north are wanting a more comfortable plane. I am certainly one who used to use them quite a bit, but for other reasons I tend to go to North Bay now by automobile. I was on the flight yesterday. I started off in Fort Frances and went to Atikokan and Thunder Bay. It still provides a very good service.

What do you think of the future of that type of aircraft where we have lines such as that which, say in my area of Kirkland Lake, may increase later on but which today are serviced well by a Twin Otter and that size aircraft? What might be the replacement? Are there any plans for replacing that aircraft with similar size aircraft that could fly above the weather, etc, and provide more comfortable flights?

Mr Dyment: We are looking at that; we have been looking at it for about a year and a half. We now have six Twin Otters and one smaller Navaho aircraft in service. The Twin Otters are 19-seaters and the Navaho is a 6- or 7-seater, depending on weight. We think for the entire north -- I am going across all northern Ontario now -- we probably need the same number of aircraft, about seven, but we probably need three or four 19-seaters and four or three 12-seaters. That is what we are looking at. We have pursued a number of aircraft that are available, favouring the North American market first. We have not decided on a replacement. When we decide on a replacement -- all these Twin Otters are flying in subsidized services -- we have to talk to the ministry and get it very involved in the decision.

1700

Mr Ramsay: Is it due to surveys and/or is it your information that we might have more use of aircraft through the ONTC on these routes if we had aircraft that provided more comfortable flights, ie, could fly above the weather? Do you think that is a factor?

Mr Dyment: We think it is a very important factor. We do receive a lot of complaints about the Twin Otters bouncing around. We know there is an altitude limit with the Twin Otters and we have some information that suggests people will not fly because of that.

The other thing is that even though people think aircraft are fast the Twin Otter is a slow aircraft and especially in your part of the country a lot of people will drive because of our speed.

Mr Ramsay: Yes, I can vouch for that myself. I will not get into that. I can give it a fair run for its money. Mind you, that aircraft is flying in a straight line. I think it is absolutely amazing the challenge I can present. We will not get into that.

Mr Dyment, on transportation, I was wondering if you could update us as to whether there is any potential need for an increase in service to Kirkland Lake with the arrival of the federal Department of Veterans Affairs, and is there going to be the possibility we might require larger aircraft for that route in the future?

Mr Dyment: A new Dash-8 would extend the flying from North Bay through to Ottawa, which is part of the new routing. It was brought about simply because of information given to us by DVA. They gave us load factors and other information which suggested the existing service out of Kirkland to Ottawa would not be adequate. So we beefed up the cross-section from North Bay to Ottawa and will have to monitor very closely how we make out from North Bay to Kirkland Lake. Definitely the new Dash-8 decision was predicated in part upon DVA numbers.

Mr Ramsay: Might it be possible that some of the feeder routes such as Kirkland-Earlton-North Bay might be better serviced with some of these smaller aircraft you are talking about and we might get more frequency of flights?

Mr Dyment: Exactly.

Mr Ramsay: That is the reason I do not fly it any more, the lack of frequency. If I do not get up there in time in the evening for that one flight that is going to get me home, then I am stuck; therefore having a car there makes it more convenient. As you know, we are very well serviced now by the private sector from Toronto, southern Ontario to North Bay, Sudbury, etc. If that was a possibility we might increase usage also.

Mr Dyment: To us that is the answer: probably a 12-seater four times a day or a 19-seater twice a day.

Mr Ramsay: Minister, I came in here today because a member of the Tory caucus represented my riding today in the House. I appreciated when Mr Cousens asked you the question in the House today about the Adams mine waste proposal. I was very interested in the results of the referendum that was held during the municipal elections in Kirkland Lake where the people were asked whether the town should pursue having an environmental assessment done on that project. I have been asked my opinion on that project for a couple of years now since its inception. That has been exactly my position. I am not an environmental expert and I certainly do not know whether this project is environmentally sustainable, but the idea of this proposal will never go away until we prove that out one way or another.

Because you have been in my riding you know the desperate straits we are in. You know the tremendous loss the closures of the Adams and Sherman mines have caused not only to my area but all the way up and down the line, and to the ONTC in regard to the rail service it provided the mine back and forth bringing in supplies and taking out raw product. I have the Hansard where your response to the supplementary was, "We all have different ideas of development." I appreciate that but we are in such a desperate situation that I would really beg you today to at least consider dealing with this thing once and for all.

If we had an environmental assessment and it proved not to be environmentally sustainable, then I certainly would never ask you to look at this thing again because I certainly do not want any project anywhere in this province that is not sustainable environmentally. But certainly I think we have to be open to any type of development that the north could gain.

Two municipalities in this province, Toronto and Kirkland Lake, feel this solves a problem for them both. I would really ask you to work within your government to give this consideration, and without any commitment to the project itself, at least to look at an environmental assessment.

Hon Miss Martel: I will respond to the member in the same way I did earlier this afternoon. I have met with the mayor on several occasions, both in Kirkland Lake and here, to discuss a number of items, and this came up each time. I have made it very clear to him that not only in government but in opposition, when a similar matter was raised by the then member for Sault Ste Marie, I spoke very much against the proposal.

I did not want to see garbage from the greater Toronto area or Toronto brought into northern Ontario for two reasons. First, it created an out of sight, out of mind attitude, and second, it did nothing to force particularly the people in southern Ontario to deal with what is becoming a very severe garbage crisis. So I have been opposed to the transportation of garbage to northern Ontario for some time now.

I said very clearly to the mayor that it would be an issue on which we would have to agree to disagree, because I was not prepared, either as Minister of Northern Development and Mines or as a member of this caucus and cabinet, to work to reverse a decision the whole cabinet has come to. Very clearly, in April of this year, the Minister of the Environment said that an environmental assessment in order to move garbage anywhere into northern Ontario would not be undertaken but that the GTA had to look after its garbage within the boundaries of the GTA. It is a position I support. I know it makes me unpopular in various sections of the north. I know how unhappy the mayor is with that decision, but I have said to him on many occasions that this is my position and it has not changed.

Mr Ramsay: I am wondering if we could look at another proposal. One of the ideas I felt flowed from this proposal was that it might have given northeastern Ontario an opportunity to get into recycling. As you know from the density of the population in our area, it is very doubtful whether we can get into some sort of viable recycling. It seemed to me that the Adams mine proposal, primarily planned for GTA waste, would have given an opportunity for any municipality along the line between Toronto and the Adams mine site to also avail itself of that facility. It would not only be the municipalities I represent in Timiskaming, but North Bay is having trouble right now with finding locations, as are many municipalities, and potentially others, like Barrie and Orillia, and possibly even ones north of us. This site could be an Ontario recycling centre not just for the GTA but for other municipalities.

If the proposal was brought forward in another light, because you have this ideological opinion about GTA garbage, that the GTA has to find a place within its own limits to take care of its garbage, is that just for the GTA or does that mean every municipality everywhere has to do this? It seems to me that recycling needs some sort of economies of scale to be really viable. It might be an opportunity for places other than Toronto which do not have that scale to avail themselves of a facility that could really make efficient recycling possible. What would be the opinion on looking at another proposal that looked at the same site but was servicing other centres to see if it is viable? On this one, you would have to start with a feasibility study to see if it is viable and then go into an environmental assessment to see if the site could handle it.

Hon Miss Martel: We have had that suggested to us on several occasions by the proponents of the site at Adams mine. My concern is that any new proposal will still have creeping into it the matter of dealing with garbage out of the GTA and far beyond the boundaries of a municipality or a region, where I feel garbage should be dealt with, certainly in the case of southern Ontario garbage.

We did say when we introduced the strategic consultation and Action Now North program several weeks ago that the question of the 3Rs was particularly important in northern Ontario and that we wanted to have a series of roundtables or discussions on looking at recycling in the north, particularly communities that are having trouble getting blue boxes into place, and see what we could do about that. We are very much interested in having discussions about recycling in the north.

My only concern is that in trying to do that we will have creep into it somewhere yet another proposal that deals with GTA garbage. I made it very clear when I announced that we would do that particular roundtable looking at recycling in northern Ontario that even under that rubric I would not entertain a proposal that looked at transporting garbage from south to north. I want to make it very clear that a proposal might come under another name and another guise, but I am always a little suspicious about looking at it a little more carefully, because inevitably there is a portion in there where it looks at garbage not only through northern communities but starting somewhere in the south, and that I cannot agree to.

1710

Mr Ramsay: Would you consider commencing a feasibility study that considered the transporting of garbage within northeastern Ontario to a site? Hopefully it would be in my riding, in Kirkland Lake, speaking on behalf of my riding today, and obviously it would be on a much smaller scale. Do you have anything against the transportation of waste within northeastern Ontario or within northern Ontario as a whole so that we could look at the feasibility of a project that might have the scale to be viable?

Hon Miss Martel: Part of the reason I announced having a specific group look strictly at recycling and having not only municipalities but a number of other people who would have an interest participate at that table to deal with these particular questions is that I would not want to use a separate forum from the one I have already announced. I think the one I announced will allow for good public discussion and debate on this question. So I would continue to say that at this point we would like to use SCAN North and the environment committee, so to speak, we have established under that to look at the questions of recycling. Again, though, I would not entertain under that a proposal that would look at transportation of garbage from south to north.

Mr Ramsay: I appreciate that. The reason I am asking this is that there is no point -- I like your idea, as a matter of fact, of SCAN North in these committees, and I am glad you have one that is going to look at recycling in northern Ontario. Having a schizoid existence of living half my life in the south and half in the north, I feel really strange when I get home and I have to throw a pop can into the garbage. I just feel very strange about that, because I have adopted the culture we have in southern Ontario of recycling, and I know northerners really want to begin recycling.

But there is no point in your committee looking at the feasibility of larger recycling centres if you would have the same, as I said before, narrow view that you cannot transport any sort of waste at all. Just to get it clear, what you are against is south to north, but can we have transportation of waste within the north so that we could have a centre of greater scale that might make it feasible? Why I am saying this is I do not think that in many of the small towns we have recycling is going to be feasible.

Hon Miss Martel: I do not know what the economies of scale are right now, and that was part of our purpose in trying to get this particular work up and running. I have a good sense in terms of the communities we fund with blue box programs who is and who is not participating at this point. There are a whole bunch of others. I want to investigate the reasons why they cannot get started, to find out if it is a question solely of not having enough capital to start or not having a centre to move stuff to. That was part of the reason.

My opposition is to moving outside of the GTA and transporting southern garbage to northern Ontario. If we could look at what the economies of scale are and what we are dealing with in northern Ontario, I am open to have a broad discussion about northern Ontario. What I am not open to, though, is talking about movement of garbage from south to north.

Mr Ramsay: So I take it you would not be against the transportation of wastes, say, from North Bay to Kirkland Lake?

Hon Miss Martel: No, but I would like to have a look at what that entails. I do not know what it entails to move that garbage: how much there is, what people would want, to move it where, who would be involved, who is involved now in blue box, where is that material going? I do not have enough questions answered to know what kind of transportation links I may or may not want to see established in northern Ontario as well. What I said, though, is that we are open to have that discussion. We are open to have people come and say their piece and to look at the possibilities. I am not open to revisiting a second kick at the can for the Notre Development Corp proposal.

Mr Ramsay: In regard to GTA. But you would be open to any type of discussion of recycling within northern Ontario.

Hon Miss Martel: I would be open to that discussion. The groups we are bringing in are cutting across a number of municipalities that have a concern about garbage. There are also people from Pollution Probe, etc, so I think it will be a very avid discussion about this matter.

Mr Brown: I am interested in health care issues in northern Ontario, and I think in the past couple of days we have explored the medical specialist area rather well. Right now I am more interested in the health care system, which I think is in grave danger throughout northern Ontario. Speaking as a local member, I know that in my particular riding we are very concerned about the events that are happening with the nursing homes, with the events regarding the hospitals and home care and the whole provision of health care to northerners in a manner they have become accustomed to.

At Manitoulin Health Centre, for example, we have had 20 layoffs, or are about to -- at least 20 losses of jobs, not necessarily layoffs. We have lost five from the nursing home in Gore Bay, we are losing some at St Joseph's General Hospital in Elliot Lake, and the Espanola situation I am not sure of but I know they are in a deficit position and they are going to be having some difficulties.

My concern is, how are we going to maintain the level of service we have today for our people over the distances they have to travel, given the rather onerous events, I would say, and announcements by the Minister of Health over the last period regarding hospital budgets, nursing home budgets, etc?

Hon Miss Martel: I would argue with the member that it is not particularly a northern, southern, eastern or western problem. The minister has said very clearly that hospitals across the province are going to be expected to deal within the funding we can provide them. She has also said very clearly in the House that as we look at individual hospitals, she is prepared to deal with those on an individual basis to determine what their needs are. I think that is the approach we are going to have to have, hospital by hospital, regardless of where it is located in Ontario.

Mr Brown: Would the minister not agree, however, that there are some differences in the provision of health care in northern Ontario, that in fact at this present time we do not receive the same service in many areas as we do in southern Ontario due to a lack of professionals, not necessarily medical doctors but physiotherapists, audiologists and a number of other related professions? It seems to me that when we are behind to begin with, we have to be very careful that the ministry, as it cuts back across the board, understands the difference, that we are in a situation even right now where health care is not being provided at a level that is equivalent to what you might get in Toronto.

Hon Miss Martel: But you are talking about hospitals and funding to them and the recent series of questions the minister has experienced on the one hand, and on the other hand, the lack of professionals in northern Ontario.

Mr Brown: It is clearly related.

Hon Miss Martel: I would argue that there is a whole question of incentives we continue to provide as well out of our ministry to try to attract and retain all these particular people. I would argue that in some cases their reluctance to come would go beyond the question of the facility itself to a whole question of not being attuned to or not liking the distances that might have to be travelled, not liking the climate, a feeling of isolation from professionals, which may make people not want to come north, etc, which I think is a bit of a separate issue from the question of one or the other hospital being in a deficit position.

Mr Brown: The issues are related. If a hospital cannot fund a physiotherapist within its budget and its budget is not going to be expanded, we are not going to have a physiotherapist. I mean, it is that easy.

I will be specific and just ask, what new initiatives do you have to bring health care professionals to the north that were not previously in place or the policy of the former government? What have you done that is new? I am not talking about the residency program, because --

Hon Miss Martel: Because it was announced in the election and we funded it.

1720

Mr Brown: No, it was announced before the election.

Hon Miss Martel: Oh, Mike, it was announced in July. Come on. It was not announced before, it was announced during the election campaign.

The Chair: I would love to hear this debate but we are about at the end of your time, Mr Brown. And what I would like to suggest to you is that since we are at the end of your rotation, I would give you two minutes to offer up your summary comments for your estimates and your participation in them and any final word you wish to make on the record.

Mr Brown: I appreciate that, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Please proceed.

Mr Brown: I first would like to commend the minister and her staff for appearing here. I think we have learned a great deal and that the information provided to us was excellent. Having said that, I must say that I am very disturbed by what is going on in northern Ontario and the lack of direction of government policy in northern Ontario to deal with the very real problems that we have. The answer that we are in a recession and cannot do anything about it because we have no money is not going to fly.

Your party made very specific promises to northern Ontario in the election, and in the document, the famous Agenda for People, they made the comment, "We are in a recession." This was not news to your party. It is part of the Agenda for People. It is part of the document. It presumes, and the electorate had every right to presume, that the government would continue with these policies whether we were in a recession or not. It is part of the document. We are most disappointed that this government is doing less rather than more. We feel we are not going to come out of this recession in the same kind of shape as the rest of the province.

I know my time is limited, Mr Chair. I have some further questions to table with the committee that, because of lack of time, we have not been able to ask, and I will just do that.

The Chair: I appreciate that. I will not read them into the record. We have the prior agreement of the deputy and the minister to give you written responses and they will be circulated to all members of the committee.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, at a district of Parry Sound municipal association meeting held on September 13 of this year, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation said that it was unrealistic to expect that Highway 69 be four-laned from Waubaushene to Sudbury in the near future. Could you comment on that?

Hon Miss Martel: I would have to ask the ministry staff who are here if they can give me some indication of what the current projections are for when that would be four-laned. Certainly, when I met the municipal association, the question they raised with me was whether there was funding. They have started on that particular route. I would ask Don if he can give the committee members an idea of the schedule in that particular area now.

Mr Moorhouse: The question as I understand it concerns Highway 69 from Waubaushene all the way to Sudbury. The plans of the Ministry of Transportation are to proceed northerly from the work that they are doing right now in the vicinity of Muskoka Road 5. They intend to proceed basically one contract at a time in a northerly direction. Again, that depends on funding that they are able to allocate to the project. When they reach MacTier, it is this ministry's intention to continue with those plans. At the present time we have asked the Ministry of Transportation to do the necessary planning and design work to be ready for those projects. Any individual projects such as that may take, MTO tells us, as long as eight years before you can start construction.

At the same time we have advised them of our interest in starting a similar program heading south from Sudbury and we are presently in the process of trying to finalize the actual arrangements and start the planning process there. Again, they are limited by resources and staff to allocate to that, but that is what our intentions are.

Mr Turnbull: In the same vein, Highway 11 between Powassan and Trout Creek is estimated to reach its traffic limit some time before 1995, and yet we are told that construction will not begin on the four-laning of this until 1996 or 1997. Could you comment on that?

Hon Miss Martel: Again, in all cases, if you are asking whether we can accelerate funding to deal with what looks to be increased traffic volumes sooner rather than later, and get that project on stream earlier, I suspect it is not only a question of money but of engineering. I also do not know if the environmental assessment has been done on that particular section of road yet. I do not know if there are any intervenors, either by the municipality or by anyone else who might be opposed. Whether it can be accelerated depends not only on funds but on all those other questions, and they would all have to be looked at before we could give any idea as to whether it could be accelerated.

Don, you might have some further information that you would want to add.

Mr Moorhouse: The first project south of Callander is in the final stages. With an appropriate allocation of funds, there is every intention to try to proceed with that one in the next year.

Mr Turnbull: Let me then phrase it in these terms: What is the present budget this year for four-laning the Trans-Canada Highway, the northern section?

Mr Moorhouse: We do not separate the budget into different highway classes. There is a northern highways budget, if that is what your question is, and I assume if I went through the list I could come up with a number of dollars.

Mr Turnbull: I am sure you must have an approximate idea in your mind.

Mr Moorehouse: For this year?

Mr Turnbull: Yes.

Mr Moorhouse: As I answered an earlier question, the only project that was a four-laning project in this year's budget was the three or four kilometres at Nobel which I understand was around $3.5 million.

Mr Turnbull: And what is in the budget for next year for the four-laning?

Hon Miss Martel: The budget for next year has not been set yet. All of the ministries will have to go before Treasury Board, through the estimates process, to determine what their allocations will be.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, I just want to remind you, in this An Agenda for People document, of a comment:

"Long stretches of the Trans-Canada through the north are nothing less than a disgrace: two lanes, busy with trucks, suffering from poor maintenance, and unsafe.

"Ontario must undertake negotiations with Ottawa to proceed with the four-laning of the Trans-Canada across the north to improve this vital transportation corridor. The cost to the taxpayer would depend on the federal government's willingness to share its responsibility for this major east-west road link.

"New Democrats would make $100 million available for this important project."

So we are saying $3.5 million was made available this year, as compared with your campaign promise of $100 million for this important project?

Hon Miss Martel: There is other work that went on on northern highways. It would not have to have been four-laning. We advanced the work at Parry Sound in order to provide security, because there had been a number of accidents, and we responded this year to a safety problem in that area.

Mr Turnbull: I am reading specifically under the section of An Agenda for People which says, "Four-laning the Trans-Canada Highway," and I will repeat the wording: "New Democrats would make $100 million a year available for this important project."

Hon Miss Martel: And as I responded to the member for Parry Sound yesterday when he asked me both about this and about the $400-million commitment over two years in northern Ontario, I stated very specifically to him that in this fiscal year we went well above the $200 million we had promised in terms of the $400-million package over two years. We did not proceed to the $100 million as outlined in An Agenda for People. I expect that every one around the table, recognizing the fiscal restraints we are under, would recognize that we made some specific decisions with respect to schools, education, hospital care, and economic development in a lot of the communities I represent. Clearly, we did not have the funds to put aside to do that. I expect we will not have the funds to put aside for that next year either.

Mr Turnbull: So this year we spent 3.5% of what you said you were going to spend. Is this your commitment to northern Ontario, Minister?

Hon Miss Martel: I think my commitment to northern Ontario has been well demonstrated over the last year. We have brought $210 million into the north in terms of anti-recession funding, a $15-million package into Elliot Lake, a $15-million sawmill adjustment fund, a further $250-million package in Elliot Lake, a package in Kapuskasing to save well over 800 jobs in that community, and a series of new initiatives -- Nortop, the marketplace program and others -- in order to stimulate investment and help with job creation and job maintenance. We also spent $62 million this year out of the northern Ontario heritage fund. So I think my commitment to northern Ontario has been well demonstrated in the last year, and is a very secure and sound one.

Mr Turnbull: In view of that, Minister, are you saying that you have abandoned your four-laning promise of $100 million a year, since you have spent it in these other areas?

1730

Hon Miss Martel: Well, if you think the four-laning is more important than the $230 million we put into small communities over the last year in order to maintain the infrastructure, then we could argue about that.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, I am quoting from your document.

Hon Miss Martel: We have made it very clear that in this time of fiscal restraint we were not going to be able to carry out this year all of the projects we had committed to, or all of the promises we have made. I certainly hope that as the economic times improve in this province, we will be able to live up to the commitments we have made. But we have a series of very difficult choices in front of us with respect to health care, with respect to education, with respect to economic development.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, you knew you would have difficult choices when you went into the election.

Hon Miss Martel: We have made some tough decisions, but I certainly think the decisions we have made are to the benefit of the people in northern Ontario. We have responded directly in many communities across the north this winter with job creation projects which have allowed local people to work and allowed for the purchase of local goods and services. I think the work we did in the north this year was very tremendous. The feds were nowhere to be found. It is very unfortunate.

Mr Turnbull: Well, Minister, I have to tell you, I think that the people of northern Ontario are very disappointed with this government.

Hon Miss Martel: I think you are wrong.

Mr Wood: They are disappointed in Brian Mulroney and the Tories.

The Chair: Mr Wood, you are pressing your luck with me today. You are. One more time, and I will name you.

Mr Turnbull: The concern I have is that these were commitments made during the election in the full knowledge that we were in a recession. Admittedly, you did not know we were in as deep a recession as we are in. I certainly recognize that you took over a difficult situation. But nevertheless I am asking you, with respect to promises you made to northern Ontario in the election, why are you spending only 3.5% of what you promised for what you said was an important project?

Hon Miss Martel: And it remains an important project. What I am saying to you is that, given the fiscal restraints we are facing, it was not only a question of us coming in when the recession was starting. It was us also coming in, having been told by the former government not only that we had a balanced budget but a surplus in the budget. Six weeks after, we had a $2.5-billion shortfall. So that was a bit of a surprise, and certainly something we knew nothing about during the election campaign, nor did the electorate. I am saying to you that during this time, we have to make tough decisions about what we can or cannot do and what is in the best interests of the people we represent. Certainly, we have made some tough choices about where we can accelerate some of the work or where we have to hold the line or where we want to put our money. I think the decision by the government, in the throne speech, to put $700 million into the province this year in order to start to stimulate the economy, in the hope that the private sector would come on board and start building as well in what is the worst recession this province has ever faced, was a good decision for us to make.

Mr Turnbull: So, Minister, your priority would be to put in large planes to an area which typically has seven passengers per flight and knock out of business a private carrier who was making a profit, while at the same time you cannot find enough funds for your election promises to put roads in so that the people of the north can enjoy better transportation? I find great difficulty with that.

Hon Miss Martel: I am very interested in your comment "knock out of business," because what we are talking about is two flights in and out of Kenora every day. It will not knock Bearskin Air out of business in northern Ontario by any stretch. They still continue to maintain a contract we have with them running some of our planes in and out of Kenora.

Second, let me say that the member obviously does not understand how important air service is in the north either --

Mr Turnbull: I certainly do, Minister.

Hon Miss Martel: -- because we will continue to maintain the road work we have. We will not be able to accelerate it, but we continue to maintain the road work as outlined by a five-year plan developed in conjunction with ourselves and the Ministry of Transportation. But this particular community, and others, certainly have a great need for air service as well.

Mr Turnbull: They have air service.

Hon Miss Martel: The private sector in that community did not want to respond by putting on a Dash-8, in spite of the fact that the local people had said very clearly that they did not like the Twin Otters. They did not like the fact that they were not pressurized, had no stewardess, had no bathroom. The people were driving to Thunder Bay and to Winnipeg in order to avoid getting on to the Twin Otters. We responded to that community. I know you do not like it that we did that, but I am pleased we did.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, your plane was not pressurized, but the other airline had some pressurized planes which they put on periodically -- not every flight was pressurized -- and they had ordered a 19-seat, pressurized turboprop for service on that route two months before you made the announcement.

Hon Miss Martel: Without a washroom, is my understanding, and without a stewardess, which were three of the components that we were asked to deal directly with in terms of the Dash-8.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, I am going to tell you, there are people who spend as much time on the subway as on the hop that flight without a toilet does. As well as that, stewardesses are giving out free booze, to my knowledge, on your airline. This is subsidized by taxpayers' dollars. They are giving out free booze, free wine and beer.

Hon Miss Martel: Nothing is free, my friend. Nothing is free. You are wrong. There is no free lunch on that plane. I know the member does not like the fact that the private sector did not want to respond in that community.

Mr Turnbull: They were responding, Minister.

Hon Miss Martel: No, I tell you, they were not.

Mr Turnbull: They had ordered a 19-seat, pressurized plane.

Hon Miss Martel: They knew very well, because they had been told by us in July -- July, I point out to you -- that we had every intention of proceeding with putting a Dash-8 on. We did not make our announcement until November. Therefore, if they made a decision to go ahead and buy another plane to put in there, knowing full well that we intended to proceed, I cannot speak to that business sense or that business logic. But Mr Friesen met with Mr Dyment in North Bay at the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission building in July at my request and told him very clearly that this ministry had every intention of responding to the need in Kenora, responding to the concerns and putting a Dash-8 in there. If they went ahead and made a decision to purchase a plane after that, I do not think that is my fault.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, is it the attitude of your government that you are prepared to put private business out of the province at the same time you are trying to encourage it, and yet, at the same time, you are going to bail out losing operations because there is a big union involved?

Hon Miss Martel: What losing operations are you referring to?

Mr Turnbull: Algoma.

Hon Miss Martel: My friend, you and I have different ideas about how to help working people, and I do not think we are ever going to agree in this place.

Mr Turnbull: We certainly do.

Hon Miss Martel: We certainly do, and I would stand by my opinion and my feelings much more than yours, my goodness.

Mr Turnbull: Minister, what are you doing about --

Hon Miss Martel: I am sure you would walk away from Algoma and see 8,000 people go right down the tubes. If that is the Tory philosophy, my God, I am pretty worried.

Mr Turnbull: No. Minister, the most efficient steelmaker in North America bought it and made an offer to the employees a year and a half before that.

The Chair: Let's try and reduce the --

Mr Turnbull: This is still my time, Mr Chair. They made an offer to the employees a year and a half before which would have involved some staff reductions and holding the line on pay. They went on strike, and now the increase in pay they got is the increase which killed the company. Now that notional increase is their equity in that the taxpayers are going to buy them shares in the company. If that is your idea of encouraging private enterprise, we are in an even greater mess than I thought we were.

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Turnbull, I think you had better take another look at what is going on, because to suggest that the fact that the employees got a wage increase has now driven Dofasco to release itself of any obligation to Algoma Steel and has now put Algoma Steel in the position that it is -- I suggest that is a very unfair link to make, because it is absolutely untrue. The problems that are going on at Algoma Steel involve a problem in the structural steel industry right across North America.

Mr Turnbull: Yes, and Dofasco is the most efficient operator.

Hon Miss Martel: I think it is very unfair of you to blame the workers at Algoma Steel, who got a wage increase, for the current predicament that the company may or may not survive. I think that is very unfair.

Mr Turnbull: I think it is most unfair of you to put people out of work in an airline which is making profits and where you are going to pour taxpayers' dollars.

Hon Miss Martel: I do not think you listened, Mr Turnbull, to what we have said or what Mr Dyment said. Interjections.

The Chair: I am very pleased to inform all the members of the committee that we are near completion of this round of discussions. If Mr Turnbull would like to exercise a moment to summarize, I would be willing to give him that.

1740

Mr Turnbull: Mr Chair, as you know, I sat in this afternoon because of my concerns for this transport-related issue. Unfortunately, our member Mr Eves, the member for the north, is not able to attend. I will only say that it is the interest of the Conservative Party to ensure that there is a diversification of northern industry, and the only way we are ever going to be successful is by nurturing private business which will create long-term jobs where people will be able to care for themselves. At the moment, this government is doing everything to drive private industry out of this province, and I regret to say that I am very dissatisfied with the direction of the government.

Mr Wood: Talk to Brian Mulroney.

Mr Turnbull: Why do you not talk to him?

Mr Wood: We do, and he does not listen.

The Chair: I am pleased that you two are finished. I would like to make a statement if I may, and I would like the attention of the committee members. We have a bit of committee business, and it may come as a shock to you, but this is our last meeting for the next four or five months. With that information, we have some committee business that has to be dealt with. Therefore, with the committee's permission, I would like to bring to conclusion this round of estimates and ask the minister for her summary comments. Then we will proceed with the votes. We will not retain the ministry staff any longer than necessary. Then we may proceed to do some brief committee business. If there is no objection, I would like to proceed on that basis.

Mr Martin: Might I just have a minute to, on behalf of our caucus, do a little summary?

The Chair: Yes, you may. But that generally falls on the shoulders of the minister. If you wish to take some of the minister's time, that is fine.

Mr Martin: I would just like to say to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines today, on behalf of the 10 members of our caucus who represent the north, that we think she is doing an admirable job of stimulating, responding to, listening to, participating with, those whom we represent as we struggle with this terrible recession that has taken hold of this province, and most particularly, the north of this province. It is often not understood or I think respected by southern members that for every job in northern Ontario, eight more jobs are created in southern Ontario because of our resource extraction industries up there.

For us, items like transportation are of the essence as we make the sacrifices we do, with the long winters and the isolation, to live up there in order to stimulate the economy so that those who work and live in southern Ontario might have the quality of life they enjoy. So when we ask sometimes for a little extra so that we might enjoy a certain quality of life even somewhat comparable to what happens in southern Ontario, I hope they would understand.

I know you are doing all you can to diversify the economy and we appreciate that. As the member for Algoma-Manitoulin said, you have handled yourself excellently and your staff have come forth with the information that we required. Because of that, all of us who represent the north, who work and live up there, will be able to be more helpful to our constituents as we move through these difficult times.

Hon Miss Martel: It is very much in the interests of this party to diversify the economy as well. That is why we have spent $62 million out of the heritage fund in the last year since I have been minister to try and promote small business and investment in northern Ontario. In terms of the Dash-8 service, we will create 25 new jobs in Sault Ste Marie. We made it very clear at the time of the announcement that we would pick up any of the people who may be displaced with our action. We are working with Bearskin to accommodate that now and to determine what those numbers will be so there will be no one who will be displaced by our activity.

I also think we have a right and a responsibility as a government, through the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, to ensure that we provide efficient and effective service in those communities. That is what we have done in Kenora and I do not apologize for that for a moment. In terms of driving business out of Ontario, I want to say very seriously to my Conservative colleague, from where I sit and the communities I go into, what is killing them this year has nothing to do with the NDP government. It has everything to do with the 15% softwood lumber tax, the high value of the Canadian dollar, which means most of our industries which export cannot export anywhere, and until very recently, the high interest rate. If there is anything that has killed the north, it is that, and if you want to come and travel with me and talk to the people who I represent in the north, that is what their problem has been this last year.

I just want to say on behalf of the ministry, we have done a number of things which I am very proud of: the $210-million anti-recession package that came to northern Ontario; the $15-million diversification fund in Elliot Lake; the $15-million sawmill adjustment fund that we used to save some of the sawmills that were going under; $62 million through Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp; the successes we had in Elliot Lake, in Kapuskasing; some of the new programs we announced like the marketplace program, like Nortop, like SCAN North, like the small community improvement program to put money into communities under 2,000 population. We have made a number of changes; some new programs that I think have worked very well in what has been a difficult year in northern Ontario.

I just want to put on the record here that my staff, both ministerial and political, has made tremendous efforts in the last year to respond to what have been some very difficult times. I hope they will continue with me to do that in the next year, but I certainly think in this last year we have made a difference. We intend to continue to make a difference in the north in the next.

Mr Wood: If you keep that up, you will get elected for the next 15 years.

The Chair: She might even be able to keep her portfolio.

Hon Miss Martel: I hope so.

The Chair: I want to thank staff for their attention to the questions this committee has asked of them. There are several outstanding, as the committee will be aware. Although we will have completed our business, the expectation is that those responses will be forthcoming.

Recognizing that we have completed this round, I shall now call for the vote.

Votes 3001 and 3002 agreed to.

The Chair: Shall the estimates for the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines for the year 1991-92 be reported to the House without amendment? All those in favour? Those opposed, if any? It is declared carried.

I would like the committee to stay. I want to thank the minister and her staff. We will not hold you any longer. I ask the ministry staff to please vacate quietly. I do not want to hold you any longer. Thank you.

If the committee members could take their seats, I only have a few items to share with you. As I indicated earlier, today is the last day the committee will be sitting because we must report to the House next week. As you know, the committee had expressed concern that we were unable to complete our estimates process and we have had two outstanding requests for extensions of time.

The House leaders have not fully completed their deliberations with respect to extending our time. However, we are guided by the standing rules as they exist. Therefore, I am impelled to report to the House those estimates which we have completed and voted. The balance will then have to be deemed approved.

What I am seeking from the committee is, first, a resolution that we report the estimates to the House. Further, I am requesting that the Chair report to the House the concern expressed by the standing committee on estimates that sufficient time was not agreed to in order to complete the estimates for 1991-92 in accordance with our standing orders.

Now we are open for any discussion.

Mr Johnson: Could you repeat that, please?

The Chair: The motion would be that we would report all the estimates to the House and, further, that the Chair report to the House the concern expressed by the standing committee on estimates that sufficient time was not agreed to in order to complete the estimates for 1991-92 in accordance with our standing orders.

1750

Mr Johnson: I do not think it should imply that any one party was not in favour of extending the time. If they could not come to agreement then that is the fact: They could not come to agreement.

The Chair: It is for that specific reason that if it comes as an all-party concern it is an all-party concern that there is insufficient time, not to express it in the form that one party was unable to allocate sufficient time. My concern is the auditor will be tabling his report on Tuesday. There is no doubt in my mind we are going to be mentioned again. We have completed less than 2% of the total moneys spent in this province by the government. That is all we have reviewed.

Mr Johnson: I understand that over a period of time ministries get investigated. Ministries, depending on their size and value of expenditures of the government, vary incredibly, from the Ministry of Revenue, which has a very small amount of dollars spent, to the Ministry of Health, which has the maximum, I believe. Over a longer period of time I think it becomes clear that all ministries have opportunities to be reviewed by the estimates committee. What I would like to know is how many ministries have we actually reviewed?

The Chair: Six out of the 12 that we were required to review. We only got half of them done. But their value is about 2% of the total expenditure. We did not get into a big-money-spending ministry.

Mr Johnson: Although you are correct in saying we have examined only 2% of government expenditures, it is also correct that we have reviewed 50% of the ministries?

The Chair: No. We have done 50% of the standing order mandate, which is up to 12 ministries. We have only done six of 28 ministries.

Mr Johnson: I stand corrected. That is what I meant to say: We have done 50% of what we were expected to do.

The Chair: Maybe I can share with you this further point. The committee expressed the unanimous concern that we be provided with sufficient time to complete the process. We have not had any official response to that request, so it has to be withdrawn. It is still sitting out there as a request of the committee whose concern is that we were not given sufficient time. We have given the House leaders three or four options to consider. Once we report, it is a dead issue, so the House leaders are off the hook. If we express we still have a concern the House leaders still have it on the table to deal with.

Mr Martin: What has been the tradition in past years re this process? Did they get through all the ministries? Did they get through a percentage of the ministries? Has this been an issue before?

The Chair: First of all, our standing orders were revised three and half years ago so we do not have a long history of our new procedures. We had a change in government a year and some time ago. As a result, we did not do any estimates. The new government emerged on September 6, was sworn in some time in October, and then we had to report no later than November 20. The NDP government House leader agreed through the House leaders to extend our time so that we could at least do some. Am I making myself clear?

Mr Martin: Yes.

The Chair: A few of them were done but we had to get the permission of the House to sit beyond November 20.

Mr Martin: What is the purpose of estimates? Is it to go through the whole government's spending or is it just to do pieces?

The Chair: I have a report which was sent to each member. Our standing orders require a rotational choice of up to 12 ministries that can be designated. Sufficient time was not given to us in order to do that. I do not wish to rehash the politics of this because it is not the issue of concern. For whatever reason the budget was late, and for whatever reason the estimates books were very late. We cannot begin our work unless we have our estimates books.

We did not create the problem but we are charged with the responsibility as a committee, with all partisanship aside. Our standing orders require us to do these reviews. That is why we have been careful not to talk in terms other than what is the committee's mandate. We have communicated by correspondence, with direction from this committee, what we do. I still have an outstanding letter and I still have not received a flat no from the House leaders' meetings that we might not get some extension of time. I am required by our standing orders to report on Monday that all the estimates are in and then we begin the debate in the House. Six hours will be set aside for concurrences.

Mr Turnbull: Having sat on the board of a public company and sat during that time on the audit committee, I can comment that I certainly would not have affixed my name to any audits of a public company unless I had had sufficient time to complete the process. I think any member of any party should be cautioned that there is a responsibility you are charged with by the public to thoroughly examine a sufficient portion of the estimates. It appears you have not had that time. I do not sit on this committee so I just offer that as advice for you to consider.

Mr Brown: We would concur with that resolution you have put forward, Mr Chair. The reason is, I think, as you pointed out, that this is a relatively new process, some three years old, I believe. It seems to me the estimates committee is probably the most effective means of private members bringing their concerns in front of ministries and having an ability to actually understand what is in the estimates books. I think it is particularly important for this committee to continue and to do its best to oversee the workings of government. I do not see any particular problem with this resolution. I think it is a good idea.

Mr Hayes: I am not a regular member of the committee so I have to get some clarification.

The Chair: But you are our senior member, so we are all ears.

Mr Hayes: Senior? Thank you. Mr Chair, you mentioned that the budget was behind getting here and then the estimates. Did this committee not meet at all? Were you allotted so many hours to meet and are those hours used up, or did you just have a deadline of this particular date?

The Chair: Let me explain our dilemma. Our dilemma is that our standing orders require us to meet when the House is sitting. Our clerk and I identified the concern we could see that we could not complete our work given the requirement for us to sit only while the House was sitting. We only have two afternoons a week on which we can meet. So we prepared a report and tabled it to the committee for discussion. The subcommittee met specifically early in the summer or late in June, I believe, because we could foresee this problem.

The House leaders discussed four options, including to request time during the summer, to have evening sittings or to pick up another day. We scoped out several options. But we were always bound by the limited time of only having two and a half hours on a Tuesday and a Wednesday afternoon immediately following routine proceedings. We responsibly approached the House leaders four months ago with our dilemma, and we still have not received a response. That was the nature of my concern as your Chair and why I am hopeful that we can at least report to the House, with the fact that this committee is on record as having requested the additional time.

1800

Mr Hayes: Has the subcommittee recently gone to the House leaders?

The Chair: No.

Clerk of the Committee: Yes, we wrote them a letter.

The Chair: We wrote letters to the House leaders. The House leader wrote us back saying, "At this time there is no resolution to your request." I know it was on the House leaders' agenda this afternoon and will be discussed again -- no, tomorrow is the House leaders' meeting, Thursdays. It is being discussed again tomorrow by the House leaders.

But in the absence of a resolution, I simply stand up and report the estimates. I am free, as the Chairman, to rise on a question in the House to the Treasurer and ask him all sorts of pointed questions about why his budget was late. I would prefer not to do that. I would prefer, simply in the presence of the report, to express the concern that the committee be given sufficient time to conduct its review of government expenditures, which is our responsibility.

Mr Hayes: I do not think you answered the first part of my question. You were actually allotted so many hours, right?

The Chair: The standing orders tell us that we are up to seven and a half hours for each of 12 ministries.

Mr Hayes: But the budget came late.

The Chair: The budget was a month late. We cannot start until we have got all that --

Mr Hayes: I do not know whether it did or not, but --

The Chair: It did.

Mr Hayes: Okay. If those things happened, did they actually set this committee back where the committee did not meet?

The Chair: We could not meet.

Mr Hayes: You did not use those hours you were technically allotted then, is that right?

The Chair: We could have used those hours if they had allowed us to meet during the recess. They refused to let us meet. Therefore, we were locked into only two afternoons from when we reconvened in late September to now. Then last week we were all on holidays, we had a week off, so that put us back. We could have completed Northern Development and Mines last week and had two days of the next ministry, which is Natural Resources. After Natural Resources comes Health.

I am trying to suggest to you that we have a finite amount of time to complete our work, but it is predicated on the fact that the budget is prepared and distributed.

There is a report that was circulated to all of you, An Overview of Estimates: Processes in Other Canadian Jurisdictions. If you would give that a quick read, you will notice that in several provinces the estimates books have to be tabled the day of the budget. Our estimates books came two months-plus after the budget was announced. You have seen the budget book. We cannot do estimates with a budget book. It does not contain sufficient information for this committee to do its task.

I hope that is a little clearer.

Mr Lessard: We have considered the estimates of six ministries, right?

The Chair: That is correct.

Mr Lessard: And that is what the standing orders require, as far as I can read, that we have to consider the estimates of at least six ministries and not more than 12.

Clerk of the Committee: No, you are reading it wrong.

The Chair: The clerk wishes to comment when you are finished, Mr Lessard.

Mr Lessard: Okay. I am reading from the rules. It says we have to consider not fewer than six ministries and not more than 12 ministries and offices and, further, the point you have made, that we have to report to the House before the third Thursday in November, and that once that report is made, then there is a maximum of six hours that can be allotted for the concurrence, and any of the concerns you have or any member of the committee has can be brought up at that time. That is my understanding of it.

The Chair: The clerk wishes to respond.

Clerk of the Committee: You were quoting the standing order regarding the choosing of the estimates. Not less than six, not more than 12 does not mean we can only review six. That is the choosing of them in two rounds. Once they are chosen, given the time, you have to review all of them.

Mr Johnson: If that is correct, then we have no choice. If we have to review them all, then we have to go on, if I understand you correctly. Either we have met the rules or we have not.

Clerk of the Committee: You have not met the requirement of 60(a), because at the specific date, which is the third Thursday in November, it does not matter if you have done one or 10 -- they must be reported back, because there is a deadline on that. What Mr Lessard quoted is choosing the estimates in two different rounds. You have a choice of either choosing one for 15 hours, which will give you six, or two for seven and a half hours, which will give you 12. That is what that is talking about. It has nothing to do with 60(a).

The Chair: The other point is that the concurrences are for the discussion of those ministries that were not completed, should members wish to comment. What I am really bringing to you are the concerns of this committee about the process. The auditor has named us in at least two reports as not doing our job. I am simply trying to protect this committee from circumstances that were not this committee's direct responsibility. That is simply what I am trying to suggest.

I have no intention of standing up during six hours of concurrences to do committee procedural problems. That is not the appropriate place for it. I am trying to respect the responsibilities of the Chair in a neutral position before this committee.

I would like to bring this to a conclusion. Let me separate the motions in two. We need a motion to report all estimates to the House as deemed, in accordance with standing order 60(a). All those in favour? Opposed, if any? Carried.

I have a further motion, that the Chair report to the House the concerns expressed to the standing committee on estimates that sufficient time was not agreed to in order to complete the estimates for 1991-92 in accordance with our standing orders. Again I will call the question.

Mr Brown: Can we have a roll call?

The Chair: Would you like that recorded?

Mr Brown: Yes.

The committee divided on the Chair's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes-2

Brown, Turnbull.

Nays-5

Hayes, Johnson, Lessard, Martin, Wilson, G.

The Chair: See you in June.

The committee adjourned at 1809.