Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Etobicoke.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House 130 students from Smithfield Middle Public School in Rexdale who are here with their teachers. I would like the House to join with me in welcoming these young people here today.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the House’s attention to the fact that there are 18 students from Caramat Public School here with a group of students from Glen Ames Public School in the east end of Toronto. They are on a sort of student exchange, enjoying themselves and the Ontario Legislature. I wish members would join me in welcoming them here today.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

The hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications.

CONFERENCE OF COMMUNICATIONS MINISTERS

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker; I wish to table, for the information of the House, recent correspondence between the provincial and federal governments related to continuing federal-provincial discussions in the field of communications. The hon. Gérard Pelletier, federal Minister of Communications, tabled this correspondence in the House of Commons last Friday.

The letters before the members are concerned with preparations for a second federal-provincial conference of ministers responsible for communications. The first federal-provincial conference of communications ministers was held last November. It concluded with a decision to meet within six months to continue discussions.

For a number of reasons, the second conference has not been arranged as quickly as had been anticipated. Since November, the provincial ministers have met in Victoria in May and in Toronto at the beginning of October in order to consider Mr. Pelletier’s proposals and further develop provincial views in preparation for a second federal-provincial conference. I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government now appears to have reacquired a sense of urgency to meet with the provinces to discuss the important problems regarding policy issues and governmental involvement in this field of communications.

The publication of the federal government’s green paper on communications more than 18 months ago was heralded as an important step toward a major overhaul of the regulatory and policy structure affecting the field of communications in Canada. The provinces responded enthusiastically to the obvious need for such a restructuring. They proceeded to develop their own views on what should be done in the area of the regulatory and policy environment, particularly with regard to proposals for a more orderly and rational sharing of governmental responsibilities in this important area. The jointly held views of the provinces are set out in the correspondence I am tabling today.

At the first ever federal-provincial conference last November, the provincial and federal governments quite naturally limited themselves to outlining their general views on the role of government and on specific problems. It was agreed that serious discussion of all matters in the field, including questions of jurisdiction, would begin with the second conference. I am hopeful that this original intention will still be possible and that negotiations will take place on the full range of matters of interest to both the federal government and the provinces.

At the November conference the government of Ontario set out its objectives for the discussion process with the federal government. Our objectives remain the same, and I would like to reiterate them: a commitment to negotiate the re-allocation of responsibilities between the federal and provincial governments; consideration of mechanisms to permit continuing ministerial assessment and co-ordination of policy issues; mechanisms which will permit full provincial participation in the federal policy-making and regulatory process in the period leading up to and following this reallocation; full discussion of federal and provincial policy objectives and of possible common objectives; a wide-ranging review of communications policies in each of the component sectors of the communications field, including, for example, cable distribution, broadcasting, telephony, common carrier activities and computer communications; and a full exploration of better and more constructive regulatory concepts and the establishment of more effective regulatory structures.

In the interim and after several years with a telecommission, several task forces and green papers, the federal government has decided to amalgamate the telecommunications committee of the Canadian Transport Commission and the Canadian Radio-Television Commission in Bill C-5 introduced in the House of Commons earlier this month. According to the federal government, this is a housekeeping measure. To achieve real progress beyond this housekeeping measure will require the full co-operation and constructive effort of all 11 governments especially where, as Mr. Pelletier so aptly puts it, “such discussions can be channelled into action of benefit to all Canadians.”

Mr. Speaker, I believe it will require several meetings of the provincial ministers and federal minister to fully come to grips with the communications issues facing governments in the 1970s and 1980s. An early second conference will be an important step in such a process.

In his latest letter of Oct. 24, Mr. Pelletier has set out a number of issues which the federal government wants to discuss. I hope these are not rigid conditions for a second meeting. I am convinced that a successful meeting must include matters of concern to both the federal and provincial governments. It cannot be limited merely to issues the federal government views as its own priorities. Here I include a full exploration of the question of jurisdiction and appropriate governmental responsibilities. Rigid limitations on the issues to be discussed will not produce an atmosphere that is conducive to producing the constructive and quick results we all hope will be achieved.

I and my colleagues fully endorsed the statement in the Sept. 30 Throne Speech that the federal government would hold:

“ ... a number of conferences with the provinces during the coming year ... to improve the co-ordination of federal policies and programmes that are of interest to the provinces and to make consultation with them even more effective. [And that] Few actions can be taken by one level of government without affecting or taking into account the policies and programmes of another in many areas of government activities.”

In the spirit of these extracts from the federal Throne Speech, I look forward to full, frank and co-operative discussions and negotiations with the federal government in the months ahead.

Mr. Pelletier has asked for a response to his latest letter prior to detailed preparations beginning for a second federal-provincial conference on communications. As chairman of the last provincial ministers’ conference, I will be consulting with my provincial colleagues in order to reply as quickly as possible. I will report back to the House on our progress.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Natural Resources. Order please. There seems to be too much noise in the chamber. It is very difficult to hear. The Minister of Natural Resources.

STUDIES ON DEATHS IN URANIUM MINES

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a question asked yesterday of the Premier (Mr. Davis) by the leader of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I guess so.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the question was:

“When the ministers of his government have in their possession, first, a study done in 1973 tabulating the deaths from lung cancer up until 1970, and now a study in 1974 released in Europe, but never here, tabulating the deaths from lung cancer up to the end of 1972, doesn’t he think that something more should be done than playing about with a royal commission and not allowing the public to view the kind of documentation which his government has had and apparently never did anything about?”

Mr. Speaker, the reports referred to are, first, “A Study of Silicosis in Hardrock Miners in Ontario,” prepared for my ministry by Dr. John F. Paterson, of the Ministry of Health, with the co-operation --

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): I never suggested that report for a moment. That is not the report.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Just wait until I am finished.

Mr. Lewis: That is not the report. I didn’t refer to that report for a second.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, industry and the United Steelworkers of America.

Mr. Lewis: I didn’t refer to that report for a second. I didn’t. On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the minister is --

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: He can make his ministerial statement, but I want it understood that I never even implied that report in my question yesterday.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): What did the member imply?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am referring to both reports, Mr. Speaker. And the other report --

Mr. Lewis: Yes, and I will come to that in question period today.

Mr. Speaker: Let the minister finish.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The second report, entitled ‘‘The Causes of Death in Ontario Uranium Miners,” was prepared by Dr. J. Muller, also of the Ministry of Health, and Mr. W. C. Wheeler, chief statistician of the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

For the information of the hon. member, the Paterson report was released to the public on July 12, 1974 --

Mr. Lewis: I know that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- a few weeks after being received by my ministry, and the Muller-Wheeler report was released on Sept. 6, 1974, a few days after its receipt.

In the case of both reports, normal press distribution was made both here at Queen’s Park and to other newspapers, radio and television stations in the province.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): There was no distribution of that report to our caucus.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In addition -- and I had hoped as a courtesy to the member -- a dozen copies of the reports were delivered to his office. In the case of the Paterson report, delivery was made by our internal mail delivery service, but the Muller-Wheeler report was delivered by hand by a member of my staff.

The Muller-Wheeler report was used as a discussion paper at a symposium held under the auspices of the International Labour Organization on radiation protection in mining and milling of uranium and thorium, held in France from Sept. 9 to 12. Its release on Sept. 6 in Toronto was the result of my personal concern that its contents be known to the public prior to its delivery in Europe.

Mr. Lewis: We will discuss the minister’s personal concern in the question period.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Because of the government’s concern over the matters discussed in these two reports, Mr. Speaker, and in co-operation with the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), I requested the Ministry of Health to undertake a further study of dust and radiation conditions at the Elliot Lake mines prior to the receipt of the two reports just mentioned.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): They will study it to death.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Nero fiddled too.

Mr. Lewis: The minister still hasn’t answered the basic question, but I will come to it in the question period.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the member for Sudbury East didn’t even know that his leader had the reports.

Mr. Lewis: Neither did I. That’s two of us.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Then he had better check his office. If he doesn’t know what is going on in the office, it’s not our fault.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Order.

Mr. Lewis: I certainly will. However, we will deal with the real report in question period. We will come to that.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. These are ministerial statements.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, it was also clearly stipulated that this latter study would be conducted with the active co-operation of the union, and every place in these mines where men work has been subjected to an intensive investigation, which is now completed.

I understand that this report is now being drafted and I expect to receive it within the next few weeks. It will, of course, be available to the public, to mine workers, to the union and to the government. It will also be available, of course, to all members of the House.

I’m sure that the hon. member did not intend a cynical reference to the work now being undertaken by Prof. James Ham under the Public Inquiries Act to further investigate working conditions in mines in

Ontario, and I’m sure that he regrets his ill-advised phrasing of that part of his question.

Mr. Lewis: No. It is nothing compared to what I’m going to ask the minister today.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Further statements by the ministry?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member should get his facts straight.

Mr. Lewis: We will wait for question period.

Mr. Renwick: Why doesn’t the minister resign before question period?

Mr. Lewis: He should give up his seat. He has no right to hold public office -- none at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Oral questions.

RELEASE OF GERALD HUBBARD

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Hamilton West, if he can recall signing on behalf of the cabinet in August, 1973, the order releasing one Gerald Hubbard from the Penetanguishene Psychiatric Hospital, the same Mr. Hubbard who went to the community of Brantford and four months later committed murder?

Hon. J. McNie (Minister without Portfolio): The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I wonder if the minister could tell the House on what basis he assured himself that the release was going to be adequately supervised, so that the citizens in the community in which Mr. Hubbard went to live would not be unduly jeopardized, and that the supervision for Mr. Hubbard was such that he might have an opportunity not to succumb to problems that he had experienced previously -- serious problems indeed -- but in fact to fit back into the community?

Hon. Mr. McNie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition will recognize that this is not a very easy area to deal with.

The recommendation that comes to a minister -- and I was acting in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Potter) at that time -- comes from the board of review. That board in the past has displayed, I think, a great deal of integrity and common sense in the recommendations it has forwarded to us. We accept their recommendations and deal with them at cabinet as being appropriate.

Unfortunately, some of those who are released have proved to be not as ready for release as others, but the large majority -- and I think we have to bear this in mind -- by far the large majority of those who are released have proved to be worthy of release. It would be unfortunate if the process were prejudiced by the odd one which turns out as unfortunately as this particular case did.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Due to the serious implications in this odd case, would the minister explain to the House whether a minister on duty simply rubber stamps, by his signature, the approval of the government, since the individual and others like him are in the custody of the Lieutenant Governor at pleasure, or is there some procedure whereby there is an independent assessment so that the authority of the cabinet is something other than just a rubber stamp?

Hon. Mr. McNie: Mr. Speaker, before it is dealt with at cabinet, there is consideration given to the item that is dealt with at cabinet.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: I concur in what the minister said. He said it well. Given that the psychiatric material upon which cabinet bases the decision is tendered in good faith -- and I have no doubt about that -- does the minister not think, however, that in cases as clearly documented as this one, a special effort should be made to follow and support or supervise such a person in the community, however that is done, when there is clear evidence in advance that there is some element of risk?

Hon. Mr. McNie: The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is yes.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what was lacking.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary. The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): By way of supplementary, could the minister explain why the police were not advised so that some kind of checking could be done on the released person? And why were the conditions that apparently were attached to the release never really brought to the attention of anyone who was in a power to check up and make sure that they were being observed?

Mr. Lewis: Is the member sure that the police are the right people?

Hon. Mr. McNie: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware that that’s so. I have asked the minister who is responsible for that particular ministry to be prepared to answer that question.

Mr. Singer: Well, by way of further supplementary, would it not have been logical, when the order for the release was signed, that automatically the responsible minister who signed it, who I presume was the member for Hamilton West, would have sent forward a notice to the police force in the area where the man was going.

Mr. Lewis: No, that is not logical.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): In fact it is the wrong supervision.

Mr. Singer: I want an answer. I didn’t ask the member for Scarborough West; I asked the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

An hon. member: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: No, that was the last supplementary.

CSAO NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Chairman of the Management Board if he has had an opportunity to read the rebuttal from the Civil Service Association of Ontario which was elicited by his statement some days ago, on, let’s say, the government’s view or the view of the Chairman of Management Board of the present level of negotiations.

Whether or not he has read the rebuttal, which is a strong rebuttal with an air of acrimony associated with it which bodes ill for the continued negotiations in the future, can he announce to the House what specific plans are made to negotiate in good faith with the representatives of the CSAO, to sit down with them either in private or perhaps even in public, so that the facts associated with these matters can be worked out, rather than face the kind of confrontation that lies just a few weeks ahead?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is yes. The balance of the answer is that negotiations are presently being carried out. Let me assure the hon. member that the government always bargains in good faith.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Would the minister not agree that his statement and now this response, simply raise the situation to a new level of -- I suppose acrimony is the best word to use; urgency, perhaps -- and that he has not contributed to any amicable conditions whereby bargaining in good faith, for which the minister says he is responsible, can be carried out? Is he not concerned, as are many of us, that the confrontation that has been put forward quite specifically for Jan. 1 seems to be looming even larger and more important than it was before he made his gratuitous statement?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the import of the words of the Leader of the Opposition. I would say that my statement was meant to be very factual and informative, not acrimonious in any way. That is the way it was and I do not intend to enter into a debate lest the negotiations be put in a position of jeopardy.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary, if I may. Does the minister not recognize that to cool this situation out there is required a certain number of amendments to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act? May I ask the minister when he intends to bring in amendments to that Act, in the hope that they can be discussed and debated in the Legislature before the confrontation occurs?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The whole matter is under consideration, Mr. Speaker, and when government policy is ready I will bring it to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Are there further questions by the Leader of the Opposition?

LAND ASSEMBLY IN EDWARDSBURGH TOWNSHIP

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Housing if he can now give the House any further information on the assembly of about 10,000 acres of land in Edwardsburgh township. I believe it is in his constituency, or close to it. We have been reading about this, and we have heard statements from the minister and the Treasurer (Mr. White) and some others that they know of no use for the specific proposals that are evidently being brought into force in that area. Is there any further information now available?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that there have been some options taken. As to the extent of the options, I am not sure whether it is 10,000 or 2,000 or 5,000 acres. There have been meetings held by myself with my constituents in this regard and I have advised them to sign the options if they felt so inclined and to decline them if they didn’t. It is up to themselves as to what decision is to be made in this regard. No pressure was put on the people in the area, contrary to what has been indicated by certain of the opposition members when they have stated to the press that there has been pressure involved.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Whom is the minister talking about?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What I want to say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition is this. The Ministry of Housing at this time has absolutely no idea as to what will take place in regard to housing development.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): That’s true.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We will no doubt find out in the near future as to what development will take place.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Would not the minister agree that either he or one of his colleagues, perhaps, in another position for overall planning, should inform himself as to the purpose of this assembly before it goes further? If in fact the lands are being bought for purposes which are not part of the proposed provincial plan, we may have another Century City on our hands, where the farmers concerned are going to find themselves holding mortgages where the payments are not going to be kept up.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. Leader of the Opposition would realize that the development, whatever it may be, can’t take place without the government’s approval of the land use.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Just like Century City.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As it is now, Edwardsburgh township has --

Mr. Havrot: They never had it so good.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- an official plan; a land use restricted area bylaw --

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Try to tell that to the people living there.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- so, therefore, the development can’t take place without the municipal council of the township of Edwardsburgh and the Prescott and suburban --

Mr. Singer: Is that the minister’s contribution for today?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- area planning board in agreement with the development.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If the minister will permit me a further supplementary: Is the minister telling the House that neither he, nor any of his colleagues, knows of the purpose for the assembly of what may be as much as 10,000 acres of land well above the going price in the particular area, and that he, not only as the minister but the member for the area, is prepared to allow that to go forward without further investigation?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, I’m not saying that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MacDonald: Now, don’t kid us.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What I’m saying is this: that the Ministry of Housing -- as the question was directed to me -- has no direct involvement in the options.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Oh, that is not the assurance the minister gave us.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I want to say this, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. MacDonald: Does the minister know anything about it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- that the Ministry of Housing is, and as the minister and as a local member, I am very much concerned as to what does take place in that area.

Mr. MacDonald: What is happening?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I want to make sure that what takes place is in the best interest of all the people in my riding.

Mr. MacDonald: Does the minister know what is happening?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And it will be investigated, fully, and has been under investigation by myself and by my colleagues --

Mr. Lewis: He is the minister of the Crown, not the Minister of Housing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Which colleagues?

An hon. member: Tell us.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and when the time for official comment comes we’ll make it, but not until that time are we prepared to make it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Just one more question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Shulman: Can the minister give us a personal assurance that he knows what the land is to be used for now?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There have been several supplementaries by the members.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): But it is an important issue.

Mr. Speaker: Is the question of the member for High Park a supplementary?

Mr. Shulman: Yes, it is. Will the minister repeat the assurance that he gave me in writing that this assembly is not being made for the government of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the assurance that I gave the hon. member was not in that wording, as I remember it.

Mr. Shulman: It sure was.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It was a verbal conversation. At that time, I said I had no idea as to what the intent of the options was.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Now, whether it will be a government undertaking in the future remains to be seen. I don’t know at this time.

Mr. MacDonald: What has the government got to hide?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Who knows if the minister doesn’t know?

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

An hon. member: The minister knows everything; why doesn’t he tell us. He knows.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I said that was the last supplementary. This is developing into a debate. The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): It is only a one-sided debate.

Mr. Bullbrook: This is democracy in action. This is the opposition getting information dining the question period.

Mr. Lewis: It’s not always easy.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask a related but new question of the Minister of Housing. Since it is now obvious from his answers that the government is involved -- at least to the extent that he knows what is taking place -- why is he denying the public interest by refusing to inform this Legislature of what is occurring in that part of the province with that land assembly?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP has again misinterpreted my remarks, as he generally does. Let me say to him that it would be much more in his interest if he would listen to what I say.

Mr. Lewis: I do.

Mr. Deans: Okay, we’re listening.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I didn’t say what he is interpreting.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a great pain.

Mr. Stokes: What did the minister say?

Mr. Lewis: Hansard will show what the minister said. The Treasurer (Mr. White) will make the announcement 10 days from now, just as he did in Haldimand-Norfolk. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a supplementary to the question, Mr. Speaker, with your permission.

Mr. Speaker: I will allow a supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the minister know what the use of the land is going to be, or not?

Mr. Lewis: Sure he knows.

Mr. Deans: Sure he knows.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’ve already said, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Say yes or no.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- that I do not know what the use of the land will be. I know what it is now.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister ought to blush on that one, all right.

Mr. Shulman: This is not the minister’s finest hour.

Mr. Breithaupt: This is not a place to stand; it is a place to run.

Mr. MacDonald: If the minister has nothing to hide, don’t hide it.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister is feeling no discomfort at all in the questioning process, can I ask if he knows the purpose for which the land is now being assembled?

Mr. Breithaupt: Will it be called Irvine city?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, I don’t know for what purpose it’s being assembled. I’ve already said that. I don’t know what the future use will be.

Mr. Renwick: Does the minister know who has assembled it?

STUDY OF DEATHS IN URANIUM MINES

Mr. Lewis: A question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Natural Resources: Can he explain, or answer the question which I attempted to ask yesterday? What happened to the report of 1973 prepared by Dr. Muller -- not the Paterson report of 1973 and not the Muller report of 1974 but the Dr. Muller report of 1973 -- which chronicled the deaths from lung cancer in the uranium mines of Ontario up to 1970?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of that report right here. If the member has not received it, or his office maybe has not given it to him, I’d be glad to give him a copy.

Mr. Lewis: That is the 1973 report?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I think it is.

Mr. Deans: We don’t want to know where it is; we want to know what the minister did with it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The table to which the member refers is in there.

Mr. Deans: That’s not what we are asking. We already know that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member doesn’t know what is going on either, that’s for sure -- same as his leader.

Mr. Martel: We know what Allan Lawrence said last week.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, with respect, this is not the report. By way of supplementary, in the body of the report which the minister has given me, which is a report prepared in 1974, there is an exclusive reference to another report which was prepared for his ministry in 1973, following lung cancer deaths in the uranium industry in Ontario up to 1970. This is simply an update of that. What happened to that report and why wasn’t it made public?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that particular report to which the member refers, but I’ll certainly check into it and make sure he gets a copy of it. It is my understanding that everything is included in that report. Everything is in there.

Mr. Deans: Oh, come on. That is not what we want.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, since this report, as Dr. Muller has indicated, was in the hands of your ministry prior to the estimates for several months in advance of the debate around Elliot Lake, how is it that the information involving the incidence of lung cancer deaths in Elliot Lake was hidden from the miners and suppressed from the public, and how is it that the miners were allowed to continue to work under the conditions which spawned the lung cancer? How did all that happen in this ministry?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, in view of inaccuracies of the statements and the comments and the accusations the leader of the New Democratic Party has made in the past, I’ll have to check in detail before responding.

Mr. MacDonald: Oh, go on. They were so accurate the minister finally backed up and retreated.

Mr. Lewis: By way of one last supplementary, Mr. Speaker, since the minister treats this so lightly, as he treated the whole subject throughout, on page 5 of Dr. Muller’s report, which has just been given me across the floor, there is the following: “In a previous report, 1973, Dr. Muller gave the results of the matching of the nominal roll of uranium miners with death certificates of persons dying in the Province of Ontario between 1955 and 1970.” That previous report, which is in the hands of the Minister of Health, the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the Minister of Natural Resources, showed an incidence of lung cancer three times greater than the regular population. Why was it suppressed? Why weren’t the miners told? What the hell is wrong with this ministry?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the member’s question. I want to point out to the members of the Legislature that in the course of my estimates, when this whole matter of silicosis was being reviewed and I did make a statement and I followed through with certain statements, it was the leader of the New Democratic Party who stood up and said: “You’ve gone further than I would have expected you to go.”

Mr. Lewis: That’s right, and now I know why you went. I know why you moved. It was because you had this report, you knew what the report said and you allowed the men to work, nevertheless.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Much further than he ever expected. He complimented this government.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

RECLASSIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE MECHANICS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Government Services, Mr. Speaker, if he is aware that full members of his staff, engaged in the mechanics maintenance division, last night unexpectedly received a letter which reclassifies them from maintenance mechanic 2 to maintenance mechanic 1, circling their present rate of pay at $4.57 an hour and keeping them from any subsequent raise in pay for something like three years on the basis of their present rates? Does he think that’s the way to treat government employees in the midst of the present negotiations?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of that matter at all, but I’ll certainly look into it.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, when the minister looks into it, can he see why the discussions which were held with some of these workers back in May and June and into the summer, and which led them to believe everything was all right, were suddenly reversed by way of administrative fiat last night?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, I will certainly look into it. I am not aware of that at all.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: While the minister is looking into that, will he also look into the group of workers who last month were reclassified from mechanic 3 to 2, freezing their positions for the next four years?

Mr. Speaker: It is a related question and not a supplementary, but if the minister wishes to answer, he may.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’ll look into that matter too.

FISH AND WILDLIFE BRANCH MEMO

Mr. Lewis: I have a last question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Natural Resources, if I may. Can he explain the meaning of the internal memo sent from J. Douglas Roseborough, the head of the fish and wildlife branch of his ministry, to all scientists in the fish and wildlife branch dealing with projects in northwestern Ontario, indicating that they must be firmed up within three years and saying among the requirements specifically, “Results must be direct, economic and highly visible, especially early in the year?” Maybe the minister could tell us why.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s next year.

Mr. Lewis: What a ministry he has! No. 4 states: “programmes must have direct economic impact instead of socio-economic; that is, projects would put money in people’s pockets as opposed to putting money into ethnic-group pockets or the poor.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: And no. 5 “studies need visible payoff.” Would the minister like to explain all of those requirements?

Mr. Martel: Boy, is there an election coming?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not aware of a memo that would be translated by a member of my staff or other people. I don’t know how one would refer to the “visible results,” to which he refers. This is beyond me. I would just like to check into it and find out what prompted it.

An hon. member: What is an ethnic pocket?

Mr. MacDonald: There was obviously no direction from up top.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York North.

Mr. Martel: Has the Premier announced the election yet?

An hon. member: The minister is getting in deeper and deeper.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York North.

HIGHWAY 404

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I would like to know at the present time, with regard to the proposed Highway 404 running north from Don Valley Parkway up into my riding at Newmarket, on what proportion of that proposed highway has the design been completed to date? If there is such a portion where the design has been completed, when will a contract be called on it?

Mr. MacDonald: In time for the next election, early in 1975.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the right to answer.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, let me assure you that the projects that we do in this ministry are always very visible.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Foulds: Twelve years ago several bridges were supposedly built. They never materialized.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They are also very visible in the Sudbury area, I might point out.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The interjections are wasting time.

Mr. Lewis: That’s quite a ministry he has.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s the members’ question period they are using up. I don’t mind it.

Mr. Breithaupt: And to advantage too.

Mr. Bullbrook: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m prepared to answer it.

Mr. Bullbrook: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I intend to. Mr. Speaker, the design has been completed on the highway and the first contract for tenders will be open on Nov. 20. However, I believe Nov. 12 is the last date for applications to be heard before the Ontario Municipal Board. We don’t anticipate any problem but we feel that the tenders for the first contract will be opened on Nov. 20. That will be the area from Steeles to Highway 7.

An hon. member: The minister just happened to have the answer there.

Mr. W. Hodgson: Supplementary: Did I understand the minister to say that the design has been completed on the whole stretch from the Don Valley to Newmarket?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to mislead the member. I don’t know whether it is totally completed or not. My information is that there is sufficient design completed to start the first project, which is what I thought his question was.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Supplementary: Has the minister changed his predecessor’s plan to make this into a two-lane regular highway and is it designed now as it was formerly designed in the original concept of a controlled access highway to the east side of Yonge St. from the northerly extension of the Don Valley Parkway? Is it just a two-lane highway that the minister is talking about or a full controlled-access highway?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not intended that it would be a full controlled-access highway. The hon. member knows that he and I are going to go and look at the area. Does he still want to go or would he like to call it off?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Make sure he puts his seatbelt on.

Mr. Bullbrook: That truly is arrogance, I’ll tell you. A guy in his position can ill afford it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is friendliness.

CARLETON EAST BY-ELECTION

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: I have a question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. It relates to a statement by his colleague, the Treasurer, in the official party organ, Insight, which states, “Irvine’s successor likely within a few weeks: White.” Is that the carrot that was promised to rabbit Benoit when he is elected, if he is elected?

Hon. S. B. Handle man (Minister without Portfolio): The member is afraid of him, isn’t he?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I can’t help but feel that the Liberal Party of this province is really very disappointed, upset and concerned that one Pierre Benoit had the good sense to run for the Conservative Party rather than for the Liberal Party in this province.

Mr. Roy: What’s he going to get?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only assume that the only way those people over there can get candidates is by dangling carrots, which is not the way we operate in this party.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All those rabbits in the back row are sitting up.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The time of the question period is passing rapidly. I think there’s time for one supplementary from the member who asked the original question.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: By the way, why isn’t the Premier campaigning in Carleton East instead of spending his time in the Arctic? Is he afraid of going there?

Mr. Lewis: It’s warmer in the Arctic.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if that is a question of some public importance, and I assume the member for Ottawa East would not have asked it if it were not of public importance, the answer to that is very simple --

Mr. Cassidy: The Premier wasn’t asked to go to Carleton East.

Mr. Lewis: It is friendlier in the Arctic than in Carleton East.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is a matter of public interest in the Arctic as it relates to the natural gas supply of the Province of Ontario, and I would think that the activities of the member for Ottawa East in Carleton East will be a sufficient plus for us that there will be no need for me to attend in that particular riding.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Premier which, by coincidence, also happens to relate to the Carleton East by-election --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Just by coincidence? Let’s take a vote now.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the Premier say whether the government agrees with the proposal made by Pierre Benoit in regional council a year ago that the urbanized portions of Gloucester township and the village of Rockcliffe both be amalgamated into the city of Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, if memory serves me correctly, and I am going strictly by memory --

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer’s memory.

Mr. Deans: The Treasurer just whispered the Premier’s memory.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that matter -- in fact, the total area is under study at this time. The government’s policy, of course, will have to await -- I am sure the hon. member wouldn’t want us to do anything differently -- that study’s completion.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, one supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Premier say then if he intends to appoint Mr. Benoit to the position of municipal affairs if elected? If so, does that mean that there will be a substantial shift in government policy, which up until now has rejected one-tier forms of regional government? Does the government intend to change its policy, or has the Premier succeeded in convincing the mayor, Mr. Benoit, to make an instant switch of his convictions, along with his political stripes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, once again I sense a certain sensitivity from the member for Ottawa Centre as it relates to the Conservative candidate in that riding --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They are scared of him.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): They are all in a state of shock.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All I can say is thank heaven we have somebody who has the capacity to be creative, to express personal points of view and who doesn’t adhere, as the hon. member does --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, he has flexibility all right. He has flexibility. Yes, he is infinitely creative.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He doesn’t adhere to the party line that the hon. member has to adhere to --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that government policy as it relates to regional government is pretty clearly established; the party policy is the government policy. While I recognize the member for Ottawa Centre would like me to do something that would make life difficult for the Conservative candidate in that particular by-election --

Mr. Breithaupt: It is difficult enough now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I can only say to him that he’s wasting his time.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Transportation and Communications has the answer to a question from yesterday.

Mr. Cassidy: The Premier has just disowned his candidate.

KRAUS-MAFFEI SYSTEM

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question yesterday from the hon. Leader of the Opposition --

Mr. Cassidy: He’s disowned his potential minister of municipal affairs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There isn’t a portfolio of municipal affairs.

Mr. MacDonald: It is part of the White empire.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- I am informed by the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. that the visit to Krauss-Maffei Munich test facility that was cancelled, had planned to include on that trip the regional chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, the regional chairman of Ottawa-Carleton, and the regional chairman of Hamilton-Wentworth, along with the general managers of their transit systems. Two OTDC directors were to travel with the group as well. Transportation planners from Hamilton and Toronto were joining this group at the municipalities’ expense. CFTO-TV news and representatives from the Toronto Sun and Southam News Services were to accompany the group. The trip was postponed because of technical difficulties with the prototype during the new test procedures.

The regular performance of a magnet required investigation, plus replacement of a faulty sensor component, and the retesting and recertification of the vehicle to enable it to carry passengers on demonstration rides. The visit is to be rescheduled as opportunity allows, perhaps in three weeks.

Mr. Singer: As soon as they have a train.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: This is the type of problem that is normal in testing new system capability. Last week demonstrations of the prototype capability were successfully conducted for a group of 20 Canadian industrialists. It is obvious that conducting the necessary testing programme and providing public visibility of the technology at the same time inevitably create this potential for some periodic disappointment.

Mr. Cassidy: If it will break down, why is it used?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the train they’re going to see, the one that is being built and designed for use at the CNE in 1975?

Mr. Breithaupt: The real one.

Mr. Singer: The prototype of the prototype.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the equipment and the demonstration, as I understand it, that the visiting group was to see would be the equipment that was being prepared for the demonstration project here in Toronto.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It’s prepared for this demonstration programme.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-Forest Hill.

ADMISSIONS TO ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. What does he intend to do, if anything, about making provision to give priority to the children of residents of the Province of Ontario in their applications for admission to the professional universities of this province, which are so heavily supported by the taxpayers of this province? Does he intend to do anything about that, instead of giving priority to students who seem to come from all over the world?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, the latter part of the hon. member’s question was a statement, and the statement is incorrect, I think I have mentioned before that the admission policies to the universities are the policies of the individual universities. They vary a bit from institution to institution.

There is an Ontario Universities Committee which meets to discuss admission standards. I asked the new Council on University Affairs to pursue a little further the question of admission standards in a variety of ways. While I don’t have the figures at my fingertips in the professional fields, I do have some figures which indicate that province-wide something in the order of 84 per cent of the first-year students this year are Canadian citizens.

Mr. Shulman: Not in medicine.

Mr. Roy: Yes, what about medicine?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Some 14 per cent are landed immigrants and about 1.5 per cent are on student visas.

Mr. Shulman: Take a look at the figures in the University of Toronto in medicine.

Mr. Givens: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I will allow one supplementary.

Mr. Givens: Mr. Speaker, is it true or is it not true, in light of what we’ve been reading in the newspapers, that priority is being given, particularly in the medical schools, to a great extent to students who are not the children of residents of the Province of Ontario? Is it or is it not true?

Mr. Shulman: That’s not true. Just say no.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: You’re anti-Canadian.

Mr. Singer: The NDP will answer the question for you.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He’s got a conflict of interest.

Mr. Lewis: Just say no.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The hon. member is asking about medicine. There are five medical schools in the province. There was a total of 8,733 applications for an available number of first-year positions of 582.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Shame.

Mr. Lewis: That says something about the government’s planning.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): That 582 is the problem.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The figures that I gave a moment ago are roughly correct. The applications among the five schools varied from a high of 95 per cent in one university to 74 per cent in another, giving an overall average of Canadian students in medicine of 84.2 per cent; landed immigrants, 14.2 per cent; foreign student visas, 1.6 per cent.

Mr. Lewis: He keeps close track of this still, doesn’t he? We all have our fetishes.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

LOTTERY FOR HAMILTON HOME LOTS

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing.

Will the Minister of Housing investigate three areas of the lottery currently being conducted in the city of Hamilton under the HOME programme? They are:

1. That there is misinformation being given out by one Mr. Taylor on behalf of the HOME programme to those who are inquiring about the programme that Settlement Corp. had withdrawn from the development -- Settlement denies this -- and that Shelley Construction had withdrawn from the development -- Shelley denies this -- thereby depriving a number of those people of the opportunity of choosing either of those two builders as a result of having to submit their requests in the last two or three days;

2. Whether or not the present method of the lottery, which limits those individuals making application to a particular builder, thereby limits the opportunities for them to receive a full range of the 750 HOME lots available --

Mr. Reid: Question. Question.

Mr. Deans: And, 3. Will he draw all of the names of all of the people who have submitted applications and give them an opportunity on the basis of priority number to take part in future developments under the HOME programme in the area?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to bring this matter to my attention during the House proceedings today, and I will be delighted to look into the matter. I am not aware as to the information which he has supplied, whether it is factual or not. But what I wish to do is to assure him that I will take steps to make sure that all the people who wish to obtain lots -- I believe it is 750 lots in this particular development -- will have an opportunity to do so on an equal basis.

Now, I would hope that there has not been any misinformation given out, but I will make sure that the matter is fully investigated and I will report to him.

NORTHERN ONTARIO SECESSION

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier -- nothing to do with Ottawa Centre, if that might make him happy.

Would the Premier explain what answers he gave to the representatives of the group from northern Ontario who met with him this morning in regard to their request for a referendum on secession of some parts of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, of course, I would be very interested to know whether the member for Nipissing would support such a referendum, but I did tell Mr. Diebel --

Mr. Breithaupt: Well, just ask him.

Mr. R. S. Smith: On a point of order, I am quite willing to tell the Premier that I do not support this request.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is interesting, because that is what I told Mr. Diebel about 11:30 or 11:45 today. Mr. Diebel was here with his son; in fact, he is here with us in the gallery. I think I have communicated my views to him on two or three other occasions in the past six months at various meetings. I am quite sympathetic to the concerns of the north, and this government is making every effort to see further development. But as I explained to Mr. Diebel, I really didn’t think a referendum or the possibility of northern Ontario becoming another province would, in fact, solve the problem.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Premier what specific steps he has taken to dispel the alienation which motivates people like Mr. Diebel to come here to park on his front lawn?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Getting rid of people like the member for Sudbury.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening here now for --

Mr. Deans: He might end up with another Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, that would be one solution, of course. But apart from that very partisan solution to the problem in Sudbury, I have been sitting here listening to the contributions from the member for Sudbury. I don’t say this in any unkindly sense, but I have yet to hear him say anything that is going to add in any positive way to the development of that part of the Province of Ontario. If he has any constructive suggestions or any ideas to offer, other than the negative question he has now asked, I would be delighted to receive them and entertain them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

TIMBER PURCHASES FROM INDEPENDENT CUTTERS

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. In view of the commitment that the minister gave during his estimates about MacMillan Bloedel, which was given exclusive rights to all of the hardwood within a certain radius of the city of Thunder Bay and its plant in Paipoonge township, will the minister instruct MacMillan Bloedel that it must take the timber from the independent cutters in that area or allow the independent cutters to sell to other wood users in the area, such as Great Lakes?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that a situation like this was developing in the Thunder Bay area. I would be glad to look into every detail of it.

Mr. Stokes: Will the minister look into the fact that MacMillan Bloedel is refusing to purchase timber from the independent cutters?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This was certainly not our intention when we entered into the agreement with MacMillan Bloedel.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Treasurer: In view of the seriousness and the magnitude of the projected $848 million deficit -- the largest in North America this year -- is the Treasurer aware of the statement of the Governor of New York who said that the inflation will balance their budget?

As a second question, in view of the fact that they have a $9 billion budget comparable to ours and are working on the same index of a nine to 12 per cent inflation, if inflation has balanced their budget, since we have an $848 million deficit, would the Treasurer project that we could have had a $2 billion deficit?

Hon. Mr. White: No, sir. I predicted a $336 million surplus and we will have a surplus. I suppose the reason we have a triple A rating, while New York has a double A rating, is because we are doing a better job of our budgeting.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I think, in view of the time, we should allow no supplementaries. The member for High Park.

VOTING RIGHTS OF JUDGES

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: In light of the disquiet among the judges in this province at being disqualified from voting in municipal elections, will the Premier explain why the judges have been disqualified from municipal elections but not provincial and federal elections?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, is the member referring to the high court, county court or provincial court judges?

Mr. Shulman: According to Bill 65, which the government put through, it refers to all judges.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All judges being excluded from municipal elections? And the member wants to know why then can vote in provincial and federal elections? I will research this immediately.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

SILVER LAKES ESTATE

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing: Is the minister aware of the scheme at Silver Lakes Estate whereby land is being subdivided and rented out on a 10-year lease, after which the proposed tenant is supposed to own it, subject to getting approvals and consent from the planning department at his own expense? Has the minister looked into this scheme at all? I think it is the result of a loophole in the Planning Act.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been brought to my attention. I haven’t had the opportunity to investigate it fully. I will, and report to the member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

POLLUTION TESTS IN THUNDER BAY HARBOUR

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment: Is the minister aware that testing for asbestos fibres is taking place in Thunder Bay harbour by American pollution control agencies? Has his ministry had any direct involvement in this testing, and is his ministry willing to undertake such testing? The problem may be the result of Reserve Mining dumping taconite tailings farther down in Lake Superior.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, we have done a great deal of testing all over the province. I can’t be specific on Thunder Bay harbour, but I will let the member know. We do have an expert on asbestos fibres in drinking water. Most of the fibres do come out when the water goes through the filtration plant, and it comes out at a safe level for drinking, but we will look into that particular aspect that the member was mentioning.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has now expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

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

RESOLVED: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Environment be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975:

Ministry administration programme $6,455,000

Environmental assessment and (planning programme 14,777,000

Environmental control programme 158,308,000

Resource recovery programme 2,159,000

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No bills again?

Mr. Martel: They are all going to come in during the last week and we will sit round the clock again.

Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Clerk had received and laid upon the table the certificate of a by-election in the electoral district of Stormont.

“PROVINCE OF ONTARIO

“This is to certify that in view of a writ of election dated Sept. 9, 1974, issued by the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Ontario and addressed to Michael Salhany, Esq., returning officer for the electoral district of Stormont, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of Stormont in the legislative assembly of this province, in the room of Fernand Guindon, Esq., who since his election as representative of the said electoral district of Stormont has resigned his seat, George Roy Samis, Esq., has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election, dated Oct. 26, 1974, which is now lodged of record in my office.

“(Signed)

“Roderick Lewis

“Chief Election Officer

“Toronto, Oct. 28, 1974”

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to you Mr. George Samis, member-elect for the electoral district of Stormont, who has taken the oaths and signed the roll, and now claims the right to take his seat.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member take his seat?

George Samis, Esq., member-elect for the electoral district of Stormont. having taken the oaths and subscribed the roll, took his seat.

Mr. Lewis: It is what you call the beginning of the end.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We want a recount.

Mr. Martel: Why would the minister want a recount?

Mr. Cassidy: He got rather angry when I wrote an article about his riding.

Mr. Shulman: We will have to talk about that some time.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 18th order. House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TOURISM

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Chairman, I have a short statement relating to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism estimates.

The estimates for 1974-1975 provide funds for the Ministry of Industry and Tourism in the amount of $75,568,000 -- ministry operations, $21,833,000; Ontario Development Corp., $50,515,000; Ontario Place Corp. capital and operating, $3,220,000; for a total of $75,568,000. This represents an increase of $11,066,000 over 1973-1974.

The ministry’s increased funds are primarily for salary increases and adjustments, plus a small increase in staff for Ontario field offices and the new service industry branch; tourist promotion, including increased funds for the new regional tourist associations; a new programme of university student counselling to small businesses.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): How much did it cost to run your bus?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: They are also for transfer of staff to our increased Ontario field office operations.

Relating to ODC, EODC and NODC, increased funds are primarily for loan programmes, with particular reference to increased funds for tourism development and increased activity due to the establishment of the new Eastern Ontario Development Corp. Those are the two principal areas of our advancement in the last year in the development of corporation operations.

I am sure hon. members will recall, when our estimates were before the committee last year, that reference was made to the ministry reviewing all programmes of the ministry and reassessing our administrative organization to ensure an organization that could effectively serve the people of this province. I am pleased to report that this exercise has been completed. The ministry is now set up to conform with the guidelines recommended by the Committee on Government Productivity and is organized to best serve the task assigned to it. I will not, Mr. Chairman, at this time go into details regarding the ministry organization. However, I might refer you to the Ontario Industry, Trade and Tourism Review, which was forwarded to members some weeks ago. This review provides details of the ministry organization, its services and its activities over the past year.

There are, however, two areas within the ministry that I would like to refer to at this time. The first deals with the small business opportunities division. This division, which centralizes activities through domestic and foreign field offices -- and I might report that there are 22 domestic field offices for the ministry at this time and 15 foreign field offices -- is a prime point of business contact with the ministry and is the cornerstone of its reorganization. During this past year, new offices have been opened and a number of staff transferred from the main office here in Toronto to strengthen this new field operation.

The second item of particular interest is the formation of a policy development committee within the ministry. This committee is chaired by myself and composed of the deputy minister, assistant deputy minister and the executive directors of the divisions, including the Ontario Development Corp. This policy development committee is supported by a small strategic planning unit. The director of this unit acts as secretary to the policy development committee and provides the back-up to make this an effective ministry development tool.

With regard to the Ontario development corporations, I am pleased to advise you of a major increase in their loan programme, particularly in the field of tourism development in eastern and northern Ontario. I should also like to mention that the Ontario Development Corp. is now headed by a full-time chairman in the person of Mr. James H. Joyce, a former senior executive of a large Ontario trust company.

I have indicated, Mr. Chairman, that industrial development in the current operation covers the Ontario Business Incentives Programme, the Tourism Development Loan Programme, the reorganization of the ministry, the decentralization of our field operations and the service industries branch that we have brought into being.

As far as the future is concerned, we look forward to bringing into this House a policy relating to financial assistance in the development of municipally-owned industrial land development whereby we can provide the financing required for the infrastructure in municipally-owned industrial parks. I have in recent days spoken of the trading corporation that the Province of Ontario is reviewing at this time in conjunction with the federal government and other provinces of Canada.

Last but not least, we are continuing to try to strengthen the transportation industry in Ontario and in Canada. Even though we now have Alberta in the Urban Transportation Development Corp., our discussions with the government of Canada on a national urban transportation development corporation are proceeding.

Mr. Roy: How much did it cost to go around in your bus?

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Chairman, as critic of these estimates, I welcome again the chance to express my dissatisfaction with this whole political exercise. Nothing has changed at all.

It reminds me of the old gal of 84 who was a streaker at a flower show -- she won the first prize for the best dried-up arrangement. Well the arrangements in these estimates, about $75 million worth, are, I continue to maintain, a blatant use of the taxpayer’s money. In the main, the whole exercise is to buy votes.

Mr. Chairman, in my almost 13 years in this Legislature I have never been asked once by any minister or any official of this department where or how loans could be used to help my people. My riding is the second lowest in the economy of this province -- 52nd out of 53 counties. Economically, we are at the bottom of the totem pole. I have never been asked; conversely, may I say, I have never had a loan which was given in the area.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): You have never been bashful, have you?

Mr. Sargent: I have never had one loan that I sponsored approved. When a loan is made in the riding, it is announced by the Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Winkler).

I don’t know if this is par for the rest of the opposition members, but I think this is proof positive that when Bob Macaulay set up this strictly political ministry to use the people’s money to buy votes, it was to be a political organization; we have proof positive that $59 million was used in Ontario, mainly in Tory ridings.

I am hopeful that the new member for Stormont (Mr. Samis) will have seen what is done down there for that economy, because they look after their own people but they don’t look after the opposition. I hope the new member can get the same attention that his predecessor had.

Mr. Roy: Remember, Bill Davis is human.

Mr. Sargent: That’s right.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Barely.

Mr. Sargent: Yesterday we talked about inflation. Now these estimates have a strong bearing on inflation in the province.

You know, the first time I heard about inflation I was driving in a taxi the other day and the driver said to me: “Do you know when inflation started?” I was reading something and wasn’t paying much attention to him. He said: “Do you know when inflation started?” I said: “Why?” He said: “Inflation started, I think, when Al Eagleson gave Bobby Orr a $1 million contract.” I listened to that and I said: “That’s not a hell of a bad thing to think about.” That could possibly be, when these things got out of focus.

Secondly, when we get more along the line into inflation, as Bob Macaulay says, Hydro was the author of an expensive arbitration award, granting Hydro employees increases in excess of 10 per cent a year.

Now we come down to this minister, who drives around in a sexy travelmobile with all the comforts of home -- a bar and so on in the deal. He is distributing largess across the province; he has $59 million to give away. What a big operator you are; what a big operator.

Mr. Roy: He is distributing Claude Bennett across the province.

Mr. Sargent: You have made 400 of these loans across the province and I can tell you, Mr. Minister --

An hon. member: Will Bennett go out when Benoit comes in?

Mr. Sargent: The word is that Mr. Bennett is going to be dropped when Benoit comes in. I don’t think it matters who runs this department, because the formula is set by the civil service which implements government political largess.

Now the tourist operators of the province are angered over the ODC loaning policies. The Ontario Development Corp. has money to loan to tourist operators seeking to expand or refurbish their business places, but only if the owners can’t borrow the money anywhere else.

A lot of the tourist operators are angered over this policy. One man says: “You are telling us there is money available but that the efficient operators with equity in their business and good reputations, taxpayers, are excluded from these six per cent loans; they must pay 12 per cent or more interest on their borrowings.” How does this help the small businessman? If you are a good operator you have to pay 12 per cent for your money, but if you can’t get credit someplace else, you get it from the government for six per cent.

Mr. Minister, I agree with you that lengthy statements are not necessary because we only have five hours to spend on these estimates. My colleague from the NDP has a statement to make, but I hope that in the estimates we can get into the intricacies of the $5 million loan for Minaki or the $6 million loan for Consolidated Computer Inc. and find out who the people are who set that deal up and who are the personnel of the board of directors. I will bet my bottom dollar they are all top Tories.

We have been getting the minister’s speeches in the mail throughout the year; and of course we all got a copy of the minister’s powerful speech in London, England, whereby he set Ontario back about 50 years. I’ll also give an example of the gobbledegook he talked about in the Canadian Transit Industrial Conference at the Ontario Science Centre. The verbiage here is like it’s written by a 10-year-old kid. He talks about the expertise we have here in this field of urban transport in Canada.

Well it is so good now that we have sold our rights to McDonnell-Douglas in the United States. We don’t have the American market left for us. The people who could have built this thing here, Hawker Siddeley, have 5,000 people, but instead you give the contract to Krauss-Maffei, or whatever you call them in a rinkey dink deal in -Germany -- a company which has no standing over there at all. Now we read in the press this morning where a group was going to go over there to test the units and the units are broken down and they can’t handle them.

Mr. Chairman, I am anxious to get into the estimates because the minister has a $1 million error in his estimates here on the second vote, so I am anxious to get in and find out just how he operates his department.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, before I get into the main import of what I would like to say, I would like to again commend the minister for at least taking the time to get around the province and talk to people in the industrial, commercial and tourist life of the province. I know that he did have his problems. I had arranged to meet him on one occasion up in one of the northern communities, but he got waylaid by inclement weather and never was able to keep the appointment. The local member had a field day in the minister’s absence.

I want to tell you, if I might be immodest for a little bit, we did have a very useful meeting in the minister’s absence, both at Manitouwadge and at Marathon. It served a useful purpose and I do hope that on future occasions when it’s impossible for the minister to keep his commitment he will take advantage of the earliest opportunity and whatever sophistication we may have by way of communications to advise those people of the reasons he wasn’t able to keep the commitment. I think it would sit much better with those people who had assembled for some three or four hours in anticipation of the minister’s arrival.

An hon. member: Make sure he’s waylaid again,

Mr. Stokes: For a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about the lack of an industrial strategy for the Province of Ontario.

Now to be absolutely fair about this, there is a dual responsibility for industrial strategy and industrial development right throughout the Province of Ontario. There is a dual role for this government, inasmuch as Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs are responsible for the development programmes through the regional development branch of TEIGA; however a lot of the basic work, a lot of the finances that are allocated for this specific purpose, come within this particular ministry and its various agencies -- the Ontario Development Corp. and the Northern and the Eastern Ontario Development Corps.

I am just wondering what liaison there is between those two ministries when they don’t even have the same geographic terms of reference? You have the Eastern Ontario, and Northern Ontario and the Ontario Development Corps., three entities with responsibilities for specific areas in the province. When one examines the activities of the regional development branch of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, one finds they have five economic regions. So I am wondering just how serious you are or how effective you are in co-ordinating the programmes of your ministry and this other ministry which is also responsible for regional economic development.

We in this party have done considerable research over the past several months analysing the effect of your programmes through the Ontario Development Corp. We find since the inception of the programme in the fall of 1967, when it was announced by former Premier Robarts on a tour to northwestern Ontario, that it was unveiled as a plan which he said was an economic incentive programme specifically designed to help slow-growth and under-developed areas of the province. Since that time there have been a variety of programmes undertaken by this ministry starting with the forgivable loans that were changed to performance loans; and then you had the term loans. Since that time that has been expanded to the industrial mortgage loans to the pollution loans to the tourist loans, small business loans, venture capital loans, export support loans, OBIP loans; that is the total package as we know it today.

Now we have done an analysis, our research department finished it just before 3 o’clock, using the very latest statistics available. Since at the inception of the programme in 1967, as I said earlier, it designed specifically to meet the economic and the development needs of northern and eastern Ontario, I want to engage the committee and the minister for a few minutes in analysing what has taken place since that time.

On performance loans: In the north there were 101 loans; in the east there were 189 loans; and in the south there were 255 loans. If you break that down on a percentage basis, the north got 18.5 per cent, the east got 34.7 per cent and the south 46.8 per cent. In terms of actual dollars, the north got 16 per cent of the money, the east got 47 per cent of the money and the south got 37 per cent. I want to remind you again that this was a programme that was specifically designed to meet the needs of slow-growth areas.

Since the inception of the industrial mortgage loans programme, the north got 78, the east got 53 and the south got 96. This means the north got 34.4 per cent of the industrial mortgage loans, the east got 23.4 per cent and the south got 42.3 per cent. In dollar terms, the north got 33 per cent, the east got 20 per cent and the south got 46 per cent of the actual dollars that were made available in industrial mortgage loans.

On the pollution loans, there were two authorized for the north, three for the east and 28 for the south. This means that in terms of pollution loans, the north got six per cent, the east got nine per cent and the south got 84 per cent.

In tourist loans, the north got 123 tourist loans or 49 per cent, the east got 39 for 15 per cent, and the south got 35 per cent. In dollar terms, the north got 48 per cent for tourist loans, the east got 11 per cent and the south got 40.5 per cent.

In small business loans, the north got 12 loans, which represented 5.2 per cent of the total; the east got 31 loans, which represented 13.4 per cent of the total; and the south got 189 loans, or 81.5 per cent of the total loans made under the small business programme within ODC.

In venture capital loans, there was one for the north, which is one per cent of the total; in the east there were 12, for 12.4 per cent; and for the south there were 84 venture capital loans, or 86.6 per cent. And about the same breakdown is applicable to the actual distribution of dollars for each of the three areas.

In the export support loans, the north got two for 1.4 per cent of the total, and 0.9 per cent of the money; the east got 17 export support loans, for 11.6 per cent of the loans and 12 per cent of the actual cash; the south got 127 export support loans, which represented 87 per cent of the total loans and 87 per cent of the dollars distributed under that particular segment.

Under the OBIP, the north got 33 loans, the east got 21, and the south got three; that was the only place in the entire programme where the north fared reasonably well.

In terms of the overall distribution of capital under all of the programmes that I have outlined, the north got 22 per cent of the loans, 25 per cent of the capital; the east got 23 per cent of the loans, 28 per cent of the capital; and the south got 55 per cent of all of the loans and 47 per cent of all of the dollars.

Now the minister in his short lead-off mentioned that you had a policy development committee that was designed and set up to establish priorities for all of the programmes within your ministry. Surely you have a sufficient number of people on your staff who have been monitoring programmes under NODC, EODC, and ODC over the past few years to indicate that the programme is falling far short of the mark in terms of its reason for being. It is quite obvious that under these programmes you are not only condoning what has happened by the centralization of industrial activity in the south, both in terms of heavy industry, manufacturing and commercial establishments, but you are actually encouraging a greater degree of industrial, commercial and general economic development in those areas where you are having an increasing number of problems.

Now just recently your colleague, the Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. White), as he is often wont to do, travelled throughout the province and throughout this great country of ours making great pronouncements of what Ontario, the “have” province, is prepared to do for other areas of Canada that are less fortunate. Nobody would quarrel with a minister of this government or any other government undertaking to help areas of Canada that are less fortunate and that need a helping hand. But I want to remind this minister, through you Mr. Chairman, that his colleague has been going throughout this great country of ours reminding people that as a result of the knowledge and experience gained as a result of the extraordinary concentration of industrial development around this great urban megalopolis, and in particular the Toronto-centred region, they had particular expertise in coming to grips with those problems and they were not only willing to lend a helping hand and give the benefit of their advice to other areas of Canada they were even willing and anxious to see that there was decentralization of industry throughout Canada and that they would be willing to share it with other jurisdictions.

Now, this is fine, this is commendable. But I want to remind the Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs and this ministry, the Minister of Industry and Tourism, that their primary responsibility is to the people in the Province of Ontario. It is all very well for the minister to get up and quote great figures of the amount of dollars that are being expended in these incentive programmes throughout the province, but when you have the Treasurer of the province saying: “We have too much development, we are willing to deal it to other areas of Canada;” and when we have a programme under the auspices of this ministry that further aggravates the concentration of industrial development in the south, I think that it is high time that this minister, this ministry, and your policy development committee and any other agencies or vehicles that you have, not only within this ministry but within this government, sat down and took another hard look at where you are going and at the kind of industrial strategy that the people in the Province of Ontario have wanted for far too long.

I think it is fair to say that a lot of the problems that are facing urban centres in the southern part of the province are the result of indiscriminate and uncontrolled economic development; in many, many cases, development based on resources that we have in such abundance. There seems to be a calculated effort on behalf of everybody to see that the labour component, the value-added component of that industrial activity, is located as far as is humanly possible from the source of those resources.

That trend, Mr. Minister, has got to change. I think that the result of the recent by-election in Stormont is an excellent example of the feeling and the attitude of people in that part of the province. I think it is a clear indication that those people are not prepared any longer to sit idly by and wait for the kind of promises that have been coming from this government for far too long.

The last data that was put out by ODC, covering the month of September, shows a loan in the amount of $600,000 to Campbell Manufacturing Co. Ltd. in Downsview. Is that because there is a slow growth area of Downsview? Consolidated Computer Inc. got $2 million. They are on 50 Gervais Dr. in Don Mills. Is Don Mills a slow growth area of Metropolitan Toronto? Executive Dictating Machines Ltd. of Brampton, $95,000. Is that the slow growth area of Brampton that the Premier (Mr. Davis) refers to every once in a while?

You can go on and on through all of these loans and see where the majority of the impact as a result of loans authorized through this ministry is doing absolutely nothing to rectify the imbalance in industrial development throughout the province. As a matter of fact, the reverse is true. It continues to aggravate the imbalance in regional economic development in the province.

I haven’t got the figures that I would like to have for the eastern part of this province, but I want to guarantee you that the newly-seated member for Stormont will be developing this information over the next few weeks and reminding you of your responsibilities to the people in eastern Ontario, who need a shot in the arm so badly. And he will be doing that at the first opportunity made available to him.

Now the Design for Development programmes are fatally flawed in the Province of Ontario, beginning with the Toronto-centred region plan. I think that is obvious from what I have said about the failure of your programmes under ODC. I think it is accurate to say that the developmental programmes in eastern Ontario and northern Ontario have failed to meet the needs they were designed to meet way back in 1967.

Conditions in the north dictate our primary development concentration, and industrial location in its broadest sense is the key variable in any strategy; but through a mixture of incentives, joint ventures and Crown corporations, the industrial base of selected northern centres should and must be expanded and diversified.

I want to spend a little bit of time on the demographic information that is available on the north in general, just to highlight what I am trying to say. As a region, wherever you go it exhibits all of the standard evidence of underdevelopment. Apart from resource industries, it boasts few enterprises. Figures released by this ministry show that the south benefits overwhelmingly from new industrial starts. Of 161 new manufacturing plants established in 1973, the north received 14, the east received 31 and the balance went to southern Ontario. Of 293 plant expansions in 1973, there were only 16 in the north and the balance were in the south and in the east.

Secondly, the population figures show that areas in northern Ontario have, since the early Sixties, been experiencing a relative, and in some cases absolute, decline. In 1961 the population of northeastern Ontario was 8.8 per cent of the provincial total, while by 1966 it had dropped to 7.4 per cent of the provincial total. The continuance of this trend will result in the area containing only six per cent of the provincial total by 1990.

In 1966 the population of northwestern Ontario was 3.2 per cent, of the provincial total, but it too is declining. If the present trend continues, the northwest will have 2.5 per cent of the total population by 1990. A region experiencing this kind of out-migration is obviously not providing the jobs or opportunities fundamental to economic prosperity.

The most significant aspect of this decline is its nature. Statistics show that it is the young adults who tend to move away, leaving the area populated by children and older adults. Statistics show that it is the young adults who tend to move away leaving the area populated by children and older adults. In short, the most productive group in the labour force is declining and the standard of living of those who remain will tend to be lower as the tax base becomes smaller, all of which tends to conspire to lower the prospects for future growth.

Low participation rates document yet another phenomenon of the northern economy. Hidden unemployment creates further pressure for the out-migration of productive elements. Net out-migration places upward pressures on the salaries of the employed, as evidenced by the fact that wages and salaries in manufacturing here are generally higher -- they are rather higher in the north than in the south.

Despite this bias, the uneven distribution of migration produces lower per capita income levels. This low per capita income acts to discourage industrial location in northern areas.

From this very sketchy outline of some of the indicators of economic well-being, it can be seen that the north is not faring well. I don’t know, Mr. Minister, whether you are aware of activities undertaken recently by the northern Ontario caucus of the association of municipalities of Ontario, due to the leadership of Mayor Ronald A. Irwin of Sault Ste. Marie, who polled most of the municipalities early in the year -- and came up with a compendium of complaints -- to see whether or not there were trends developing where there was a common interest, a common goal, or a common complaint if you will. He came up with a fairly accurate reflection of the problems of people in northern Ontario as seen through the eyes of municipal representatives.

It seems to me that it’s worthwhile for me to go over a few of those in case the minister hasn’t already heard of them. One of the categories I am going to mention, since it has specific bearing on economic development is a resolution that Hydro rates be made comparable to municipalities in southern Ontario. Another was that furnace oil rates be made comparable to municipalities in southern Ontario.

Further it was resolved that the federal and provincial governments provide assistance toward water and sewage systems and treatment plants that are a basic requirement for industry. Now this minister might argue that that is the responsibility and falls within the purview of yet another ministry, but I want to remind the minister that you are not going to attract industry to any under-serviced area in the Province of Ontario. You might argue that that’s sort of a chicken-and-egg thing -- whether or not you provide the industrial activity and the services will follow or whether you provide or assist under-serviced areas in the provision of the services to attract the industry. Really, it is no concern of mine how you do it, but the two are inseparable.

I am sure that during the minister’s travels throughout the Province of Ontario for about six or seven weeks this summer and six or seven weeks last summer it was made more than a little clear to him that there are many areas in eastern Ontario and many areas in northern Ontario where a basic and a fundamental concern is inability to attract the kind of industry they would aspire to because of a lack of services.

You have agreements with the city of Cornwall, in co-operation with the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion. You have another one up in the city of Thunder Bay to provide those services of which the northern caucus of the Ontario Municipal Association speaks.

They went on to say further that industrial and regional development be encouraged in northern Ontario by the following means:

“Federal-provincial financial assistance towards industrial parkland acquisition and development. Federal and provincial emphasis on manufacturing and processing, rather than export of raw materials. Allow municipalities to provide tax-free periods on property during the initial stage of development. Promotion of industries of high technological content. Construct the trans-Canada pipeline through northern Ontario.”

That’s the one, I suppose, that comes through the United States now. There’s an application before the National Energy Board to run it from Sarnia down through to Montreal. We think that should be in northern Ontario, an all-Canadian route.

They suggest a permanent secretariat for regional development in northern Ontario.

Just in connection with that one particular recommendation, I want to tell you why the people in northern Ontario feel so strongly about that. I wasn’t aware until a few hours ago that when an entrepreneur had an idea, had a plan, and submitted it to the Northern Ontario Development Corp., before the board of directors even get to see or are made aware of that plan, it comes to a management board of the Northern Ontario Development Corp.; which doesn’t happen to be the directors of the Northern Ontario Development Corp., it’s a screening or loans committee made up of people who reside down here in Toronto. I don’t know whether it’s in the catacombs of the Frost Building or where it is, but it’s someplace down in Toronto.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): It’s a part of ODC.

Mr. Stokes: It’s a part of ODC, but there’s nobody on it from northern Ontario. It’s an interministerial committee.

I’m told there was a loan application made by a constituent of mine who carries on business in my constituency, and it was turned down without the board of directors of the Northern Development Corp. ever knowing of the existence of the application. That wasn’t the commitment that was made to us away back when the NODC was set up and when EODC was set up. I was given to understand that those people would have complete autonomy. The final decision would be made by that board, but there would be some consultation with the experts down here in Toronto and they would use their expert assistance and advice in reaching a decision. But the final decision would be made by that board.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Experts rule first.

Mr. Stokes: It’s really a sad state of affairs when a board of directors, set up by this ministry, isn’t even made aware of all of the loan applications. They’re screened before they even get to see them. I think this has got to stop.

If you’re going to give northern boards the kind of autonomy that was promised them, at least give them an opportunity to see all of the loan applications that are being made, whether it be eastern Ontario or whether it be northern Ontario. At least when I approach a member of the board of directors of NODC and when I get a letter saying it has been turned down, I think you should have the courtesy to so inform your appointed members on the board of directors that they will at least be able to explain to me why it was turned down.

They weren’t even aware of the application. It’s very embarrassing for your appointed boards and the members of those boards when they aren’t even aware of an application that they presumably turned down. This is not the way you treat the public, and it isn’t the way you treat your board of directors. If you want their co-operation you’re going to have to come clean and give them the kind of autonomy that’s necessary in order for them to function properly and constructively.

They go on further:

“A regulatory agency within the secretariat to ensure long-range conservation and skilful exploitation of our non-renewable resources.”

That, of course, is our mineral wealth.

These people aren’t wild-eyed radicals. They are representatives of northern municipalities. They go so far as to say:

“A Crown corporation should be established for direct public investment in ventures in which investors, for one reason or another, will not enter. They want designated special areas and a vehicle for establishing the proper infrastructure for the location of industrial parks. They want incentives to the residents of northern Ontario and a graduated tax system, declining as one moves into the designated area. They want disincentives for the wealthier parts of the province.”

Which is just the reverse of what you are doing through your existing programmes.

They also want:

“Selective transport and freight rate subsidies, which should be co-ordinated with provincial carriers;

“The development of the growth centre complex;

“Direct government funding for municipalities to develop cultural and social dimensions;

“Co-ordinated air transport and communication systems; and

“Wherever incentive grants are made to corporations, equity must be taken by the people of Canada, with no grants to foreign-owned companies.”

As I say, this isn’t some wild-eyed group. This is a group of people who have been elected to represent their municipalities and have come together with a sense of common purpose to improve their lot in areas of the north.

I want to talk with the minister for a moment or two about what will happen if he continues on the present road. With the mass emigration from the rural centres in the Province of Ontario to two or three major urban centres, what will be the consequences?

A century ago, more than three-quarters of our people lived in rural areas. Now, nearly 80 per cent dwell in cities. The number of farms in Canada dwindled from 575,000 in 1956 to 366,000 by 1971. Our annual rate of urbanization is more rapid than in any other industrialized country. Much of the countryside that remains is becoming a sort of ghetto.

Governments, urban dwellers, and even many rural people themselves have adopted a fatalistic outlook to these statistics. The end is inevitable, they think, so let’s hurry it along.

We say that is wrong. If Canada is to survive, we must save our countryside and our agricultural land. This is neither an idle nor an emotional warning. The preservation of rural Canada is as essential to the harmony of our lives as is the conservation of the blue whale or the whooping crane.

City and country are a part of a whole. Just as this piece of paper I am reading from needs white space to lend emphasis to the words, so urban Canada needs the clean, quiet relief of rural Canada; a place to satisfy the human yearning for a different quality of life, for a relief from the sometimes unbearable pressures of the city.

Many cities of the world are already sick beyond cure. In Canada we still have time, but only a little time, to stop crowding too many people into too little space, to ward off the poverty, crime, drug abuse, pollution, traffic chaos that stem from reckless urban growth. But our rural wasteland with ghost towns, no young people, no services or amenities is of no value to anyone. What’s more, the flight from the countryside represents a serious social cost to Canada for which we all pay.

A chap by the name of W. P. Janssen, who is the director of the Manitoba Department of Agriculture’s planning secretariat, explained in a recent research paper. He says:

“A farm family moves to the city; that is one home deserted, a new one needed. Also left behind are rural school desks, now unused; a hospital bed unoccupied; a telephone system with one less subscriber; a hydro system with one less user; one less family buying from the rural stores.

“In the city the opposite takes place. The services are not necessarily better but they are more expensive and all of them -- schooling, health services, police, firemen, utilities, housing, land -- are necessary for newcomers.”

What does it cost?

Mr. Janssen calculates that if 10,000 farmers leave rural Manitoba, at least 4,000 non-farm rural jobs are also lost. If those 14,000 families move to Winnipeg, it will increase the city’s population by about 56,000 and its operating costs by approximately $55 million per year. If the new arrivals pay the average per capita tax they will contribute only $6 million to the city revenue. The remainder of the increase must be borne by other Winnipegers.

Much the same formula could be applied to any metropolitan centre in Canada if society and government continue to condone the flight to the city or at least seem helpless in reversing the trend.

What is behind this rural exodus? Part of the problem in rural areas is not so much unemployment as underemployment. Work is seasonal or subject to wide fluctuation, wages are low so that when work is available, it is not always enough to raise a family above the poverty line. Meanwhile, agriculture has become industrialized, requiring heavy investments in machinery, fertilizer, livestock and land.

There are fewer doctors per person out in the country, fewer hospitals and I less bed space. In the mid-Sixties, when 30 per cent of Canada’s population lived in rural areas, only 12 per cent of its doctors, 18 per cent of its nurses and less than four per cent of its psychiatrists lived there. Maybe that says something for rural life.

The average dentist population ratio in Canada is one for every 2,735 people, but in some rural areas in Ontario the ratio is one for every 5,000. In Ontario many rural and outport areas are completely without dental services. I know something of that, since we haven’t had a dentist in my own home town, or our neighbouring town, for over six months.

Moreover, during the last few decades country communities have fallen far behind in acquiring the luxuries most city people deem necessary. Further rural school boards cannot pay top salaries. All of this, Mr. Minister is the result of the lack of an industrial base to provide all the services so badly needed in areas of slow growth and under-development, both in eastern and northern Ontario.

I want, for a few minutes, to talk to --

Mr. Sargent: We only have five hours.

Mr. Stokes: Yes; well you spoke your 10 minutes’ worth, but you had nothing to say and you sat down.

Mr. Sargent: I spoke for 6½ minutes.

Mr. Stokes: You have more to say when you are sitting down than when you are standing up.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. R. S. Smith: This stuff on dentistry comes in the next estimates.

Mr. Stokes: I am saying what are the consequences of the lack of an industrial strategy. If you don’t understand that, that’s not my problem, it’s yours.

Mr. Chairman: Will the hon. member return to the estimates?

Mr. Stokes: Thank you.

Where does the minister get his information to arrive at decisions taken within this ministry? He has a policy development committee that has or is about to make certain decisions based on certain conventional wisdoms, certain data and statistics gathered by his advisers here in Toronto and those who work in the regional offices.

Is the minister satisfied he is getting the right information -- the right kind of input for his decisions? Obviously the results seem to indicate that the kind of information he is using is false, based on a false premise. Those assumptions are no longer valid. Maybe that’s the reason the programmes aren’t having the kind of effect we would all like to see them have right throughout the province.

Has the minister ever considered setting up resources development regional resource centres throughout the Province of Ontario? I would like to ask the minister if he wouldn’t undertake to set up one of those centres in northwestern Ontario, one in northeastern Ontario and one in eastern Ontario. Life is becoming much more complex than it was even five years ago and assumptions made on data available at that time are no longer valid.

I am sure the minister himself realizes this, coming from Ottawa and representing a slow-growth area of the province. I am not saying the city of Ottawa itself is underprivileged, but there are many areas in eastern Ontario where conventional wisdom has it that it’s an area with marginal farmland and a moderate potential for tourism; and that maybe we shouldn’t aspire to much for eastern Ontario and let it go at that.

It seems to me you can no longer go along making those invalid assumptions. I am sure the minister feels just as strongly as do all members representing ridings in eastern Ontario that they can aspire to much bigger and better things than they enjoy at present.

During the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources, which we completed before the summer break, I engaged some of your colleagues and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) in some of these very things. I am not going to rehash them here, because there are people in the Liberal Party who seem to be more interested in getting out of here than sitting down and talking about the issues. They might criticize me.

Mr. Sargent: The private member’s hour is on in 50 minutes.

Mr. Stokes: Well, I’ll be finished by then.

Mr. Sargent: I don’t think so.

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): We have some things to say too. The other side has not a monopoly on suggestions.

Mr. Stokes: That’s fine.

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you say something intelligent?

Mr. Stokes: You wouldn’t understand it if I did. I’m sure that --

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister without Portfolio): Try it.

Mr. Stokes: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Handleman: Try it.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The hon. member for Thunder Bay has the floor.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you. I’m sure many members representing ridings from eastern Ontario have questioned the wisdom of decisions that were based on available data -- so-called intelligent data. I am questioning that; because in the area of the province that I know best a lot of the conventional wisdom was that we really didn’t have many resources up there, or rather as many as we thought we had. It wasn’t until the last few months, through certain initiatives taken, that we are now for the first time able to aspire to a greater utilization of the resources we have in such abundance in that area of the province.

And I’m sure the same assumptions could be valid in northeastern Ontario if you had this kind of capacity to take a realistic look at natural and human resources down there and use that as a basis for an industrial strategy -- something that is almost non-existent at the present time.

I also want to ask the minister -- since he has got some new personnel within his ministry -- whether or not he is going to undertake some different direction with regard to the promotion of tourism in the Province of Ontario. There are certain dollars that have been made available to these reconstructed councils throughout the province. While it may be unfair to judge them so early along the way, I find that some of the information they are putting out leaves a lot to be desired.

I was a bit taken aback when I was looking at a resume done recently by a council in this province. They were discussing the attributes of a town with a population of over 2,000 -- and the only nice thing they could say about it was that it had a garbage dump. I could show you the publication, but I wouldn’t want to embarrass the people responsible for it. So I’m wondering how you see the promotion of the tourist industry in the Province of Ontario.

As I speak to my colleagues here who go to a new part of the province for the first time, they are literally amazed at the actual beauty, the breathtaking beauty of many of the spots that we have in the Province of Ontario that are completely unknown to most Ontario residents.

I get to see a lot of people from the south who venture up north for the first time and they say that the beauty along the north shore of Lake Superior between Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay is just absolutely breathtaking. They were unaware that we had these kind of values right within our borders. I’m just wondering -- sure you are spending the dollars on promotion -- but I am wondering if you are spending it in the right places. We have tended to spend most of it outside of our borders to attract dollars from other jurisdictions. I think maybe you could be doing that, but you could be doing more, too. I think you should be spending more money in the Province of Ontario to tell Ontarians about Ontario; because as recently as this morning, I overheard a conversation between two friends of mine and one said to the other: “What kind of a weekend did you have? I thought you said you were coming up north?” I interrupted and said: “Where’s north?” He said: “Up around Orillia.”

Mr. Chairman: It’s a great place.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, it’s a great place; but it isn’t northern Ontario, let’s face it.

Mr. Jessiman: Anything north of Bloor St. is north to Toronto people.

Mr. Stokes: To a Torontonian anything north of Markham or somewhere like that is north. I don’t think I am being hypercritical when I say that a good many of the province’s eight million people -- of which over seven million live south of the French River -- haven’t a clue as to the tremendous beauty that we have in the Province of Ontario or the tremendous tourist and recreational potential that we have literally on our doorsteps. We must make people aware of it.

I suppose it is awfully easy for a member of the opposition to stand here and be critical. I don’t like to be critical. I like to be positive about these things, and I hope the minister will accept the remarks I have tried to make in the spirit in which they are given. I hope as a result of this dialogue and this exchange of ideas we will come up with better programmes, programmes on which I will be able to explain the rationale as easily as you will.

The last area I want to discuss briefly with the minister was a commitment that was made when we reviewed these estimates last year. He promised me he would busy himself to see whether they couldn’t institute some kind of programme to assist native peoples in developing their skills in handicrafts, making available to them the raw materials, such as hides, through the efforts of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Nothing has happened in the interim. Those problems are still with our native people.

I know of one group of first citizens who have been buying handicrafts from native people in the far north. They have a surplus of over $20,000 worth of crafts, simply because they don’t have an adequate marketing outlet. We are trying to develop something in the north right now, through the Ministry of Natural Resources, whereby we might have some kind of co-operation at Old Fort William, which catered to well over 70,000 people this year -- and hopefully will almost double that next year -- and assist the native people in assisting themselves. These are the kinds of things I think we must address ourselves to, Mr. Minister. I have many more things I would like to talk about, and I suppose some of them we might cover during the various estimates; but I hope the minister will accept my remarks in the spirit in which they are given and, hopefully, answer some of them along the way.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to respond?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman. May I first of all refer to the remarks of the member for Grey-Bruce and indicate clearly to him that, if you recall, after the estimates of last year I sent a letter to both the Liberal Party and the NDP critics of Industry and Tourism, saying to them that since time had elapsed I was prepared to sit down at any given time with them and review in detail my estimates and the programmes of the ministry. May I also say I went as far as to send letters out to the members asking if they had ideas or suggestions that would upgrade or improve the programmes.

Mr. Sargent: You know what happened to the requests for loans? Nothing happened. How was I going to sit down and talk to you? A bunch of garbage!

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: One question the member asked was: “Who announces the loan?” The prerogative really rests between the minister and the member for the constituency. If the members go back and check their files, they will see that upon the order in council being approved by the Lieutenant Governor, I have immediately informed each member of the loans to be made in his particular constituency.

Mr. Sargent: That is not true.

Mr. Stokes: How would you know? You said you never got one.

Mr. Sargent: I never got one? No, I didn’t.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I can assure the member as well, Mr. Chairman, that there are occasions when for some reason or another, the press releases go out without the minister’s name and only the name of the local member appears -- and that does not only apply in the constituencies represented by members of the government.

Some remarks were made about the tourist operators being upset about the development plan under the tourist loans programme. May I say that in my annual meetings and my other meetings during the year with tourist operators and their associations, that has not been the expression of opinion that has been given to my ministry. I acknowledge the fact that the way financing goes in this world, some of those who can arrange financing on their own would not receive quite as preferred a rate as we are prepared to give to some when we are trying to encourage, as the member for Thunder Bay has said, some development in that part of the province.

I will touch on Consolidated Computer and Minaki as we go through the other items.

McDonnell-Douglas, in terms of its operation with the Urban Transportation Development Corp. does not come directly under my estimates; the only comment I make --

Mr. Sargent: What is the minister doing so much talking about it for then?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- is that at no time did we ever possess the licensing or manufacturing rights in the United States. There had been an agreement and a clause within the agreement from the day we signed with Krauss-Maffei, which indicated very clearly that they could establish an agency there and we would draw a percentage of the licensing fees and commissions that they would draw from the manufacturing and further development of that system in the United States.

Mr. Sargent: What percentage?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is spelled out very clearly in the agreement, Mr. Chairman. It varies, depending upon what portion of the operation we’re talking about -- development programmes, sales or components. If the member wishes, he can request that information from the Minister of Transportation and Communications and, through him, from Mr. Foley, who is in charge.

Mr. Sargent: Doesn’t the minister know?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I obviously wouldn’t be able to quote figures because it’s a very detailed statement, and I do not intend to do that here today.

May I say to the member for Thunder Bay that I’m sorry I ran into some difficulties in my travels this summer. I thought the member had taken care of all the catastrophies that might confront one. But since we did not have the opportunity to visit some communities I have made it very clear to the member that we are prepared to return with him at some date in the future to visit the communities that we missed. I’ve also expressed my regrets to the communities that we missed on our way through.

I thank the member for having taken care of the people we were hoping to have as our guests at that time and for making sure that some of the questions were answered, with the assistance, I believe, of some of the people from the Ministry of Industry and Tourism.

The member asked if we work with the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. In geographic terms, there is only one small area in the southwestern part of Ontario where our boundaries do not match those of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. However, our boundaries do not altogether match those of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

We work very closely with TEIGA and with Natural Resources to try to develop the conditions and the understanding in the areas of the province where we are trying to stimulate some new economic activity. We try to co-ordinate our programmes. May I say that in attempting to do that, we also take the regional governments into our confidence for consideration.

We have the Ontario Economic Development Corp., ODC and NODC, and while it exists, sir, may I say that it depends to a great extent on the initiative of industrialists to make use of the programme. We do not see the Ontario Development Corp. as being the only answer to economic development in any part of our province. It is one part of a scheme that will help develop this province for us.

I am sure we could go on at great length about the difference between northern Ontario, southern Ontario and eastern Ontario. The figures the member for Thunder Bay has quoted are, by and large, correct. But I think if you would sit and look at some of the classifications of loans, you certainly cannot expect an export support loan to be what we would classify a development loan. An export support loan obviously is to assist industry in any part of the province to find export sales and to ensure them sufficient working funds while the shipments are en route to the export market. So I don’t think we should look at the export loan as being what we would classify as a development loan, but as a security loan that gives them the opportunity to continue to develop new markets around the world.

Certainly the pollution loan can be looked at in a rather impartial sort of way because it should apply regardless of whether we’re in the northern part of the province, the eastern part or the southern part. As we come to the development corporation, I think we can take them group by group and we will discuss them at further length if you wish.

You mentioned the development in southern Ontario. It takes me back just a week or so when I was reading the Toronto Star in relationship to some remarks by the industrial commissioner for the Metropolitan Toronto area. In his very open remarks to his council seeking funds, he implied that his greatest competition today was the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, because of our desire to move industry away from the “golden horseshoe.”

That has been our desire. The Ontario Business Incentive Programme and various others have been established --

Mr. Stokes: That hasn’t been the result. It might have been your desire.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, very clearly they have been established to try and curb development. We have loaded the programme; we have put on special terms and conditions for people in this part of the province, as versus your part of the province, and the part that I happen to represent as well.

May I just correct any misunderstanding that might have existed with the remark about Campbell Manufacturing in Downsview? It was an export support loan and so really didn’t come into the development. Consolidated Computer -- I believe, if the hon. member would read down to the second and third lines, he would see that the plant location is not at Don Mills, but in the city of Ottawa on Lancaster Rd. If he would go on down to Executive Dictating Machine Ltd. in Brampton, hell see that it’s a venture capital loan -- it’s to assist them to further develop their product as a realistic one for sale on the open market.

One other question raised by the hon. member for Thunder Bay was about applications for NODC being rejected by a management committee here at Queen’s Park or at Toronto. The committee will do the preliminary review -- and this has gone on for years -- to make sure that the application qualifies on the terms and conditions set for the loan programmes. Regardless of the decision that’s arrived at by the management committee, what they are suggesting should take place is reported to the board of directors.

May I further draw to the hon. member’s attention that the final decision does not rest with NODC, ODC or EODC. The final decision on the application rests with the minister and the cabinet. The boards advise from the point of view of the areas that they’re best versed in, as to whether the application qualifies and if the industry is going to be of some advantage to them.

I just want to say again that the directors should be aware of every application that has been rejected by management committee. And if they feel that the reasons for rejection are not, in their opinion, justified, they can ask for the file to be brought forward for their review and a decision made by the board and a recommendation to myself.

Mr. Stokes: How long does that process take?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, it’s very difficult to tell you how long it takes because a great deal of it goes right back to the applicant. He and his lawyers, and his auditors quite often, are required to submit to the board the details of their company, the shareholders and all the other pertinent information that would allow them to make a realistic decision.

I can tell the House that often applicants take months and months and months to get back to us. But we constantly follow each application up on a monthly basis to inform them that the file is still active within the development corporation, and that we are still waiting for A, B and C information to allow us to take the file forward for a final decision or recommendation from the board to the minister.

You asked if we had any input from the field and if I was satisfied with the information and the results of the information that we receive. We rely on a great number of people for input to the ministry. We rely on our field staff, industrial officers, tourist officers and loan corporation officers. We also rely on the industrial commissioner or people at the municipal level for input to the ministry and on various other groups, including the private sector; for quite often related material that we require to come to some determination as to what is going on in a certain part of the province can be of great assistance to us.

Yes, I am satisfied with the information we are getting. I suppose it could always improve. That is why we continue to try to expand our field offices and put better qualified people into those positions throughout the province.

The member asked about a resource development centre. I would like to suggest to him that under the Resources Development situation there already exists within the Ministry of Natural Resources that very operation. I would think that if you feel there is some lack of understanding of the operation -- and I again repeat that we work very closely with the Ministry of Natural Resources -- but maybe we should sit down and review it further with them to see where you believe we can have a greater co-ordination of thought and effort.

Sir, I will deal with the items related to tourism and its direction with the travel associations as we proceed to that item. I think one concluding remark is that in northern Ontario we have spent a great deal of time and effort in our advertising programmes trying to zero in on the very wonderful and beautiful places of northern Ontario. I cannot disagree with the member for Thunder Bay that when one travels along the shore of Lake Superior one is dazzled by its beauty and its charm. I am often amazed as to why it hasn’t been exploited to a further extent than it has by people in the tourist field and tourists themselves.

On vote 2001:

Mr. Chairman: We will take vote 2001, items 1 and 2, collectively. The member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions I would like to ask. I suppose it should come under strategic planning, but it is to do with the advertising programme of the ministry itself and the development of a cohesive approach to each specific area of the province.

I was amazed this summer when I saw an ad in the local newspaper with about eight or 10 pictures in it. It said, “All these people are as close as your telephone.” I picked up the telephone, phoned and asked for one fellow, and they had never heard of him. I asked for another fellow whose picture was in this ad, and they had never heard of him either. Then I asked, “Where are they?” The girl said, “I will have to find out. What branch are they in?” I said they belonged to NODC and so she went scurrying around in the Industry and Tourism office in North Bay and came back on the phone and said they were in Timmins. I said, “They are as close as your telephone.”

Timmins is 220 miles away. If you were advertising for Bell telephone that might have been all right, but you were advertising for your ministry. Actually, the advertisement was misleading because we don’t have those people in our municipality nor do we have them in our area. The NODC office in Timmins does service North Bay and tries to do a fairly good job with the people they have. But they do a poor job, in fact, because they don’t have the people to do the job.

Secondly, just so we can clear this one point up at the same time, we are 80 miles from Sudbury where you do have another office and yet we are not serviced by that office. When we phone there we are told to go to Timmins. Many of the things that could be done by people in industry on a short trip of 80 miles have to be done on a trip of 220 miles. It is just a ridiculous setup.

First of all, what we need is an officer of NODC in your Industry and Tourism office in our area. I can’t for the life of me understand why those people can’t get along well enough at least to know each person is in the same ministry. It is very difficult to understand.

The NODC people come into North Bay to meet with prospective clients. It is done on an ad hoc basis. You never know when they are coming and you can’t find out. You phone them and they say, “We might be there in two or three weeks but we haven’t got a schedule.” Through the office in Timmins I have tried and tried to say to them: “Set three days a month when you are going to be in North Bay so people will know.” But it has been impossible to get through to them.

I submit to the minister that the organization of the ministry really needs to be looked at at that level. That is the level on which they are dealing with people, and with prospective clients who may or may not develop industry in our area.

I would ask that our area be switched to Sudbury and the development officer be placed in the Ministry of Industry and Tourism office in North Bay, where he should be. Or if he is not going to be there on a permanent basis, at least when he comes he should use those offices and not the Northern Affairs office, which he does use -- which most people can’t understand -- or a hotel room, to meet with prospective clients. I think that day and age should be over.

I would ask the minister’s comments on this, and on why these continually false ads appeared for some months after the matter was brought to the attention of both the ministry in North Bay and to the NODC itself.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the advertising programme the member refers to is one we ran to try and inform people of the personnel we employed in various regions of the province.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That wasn’t said in the ad.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I would have to get a copy of the ad. To try and speak specifically of the one the member is referring to is not at this moment within my power.

I admit it might be very proper to put a loan officer in every one of our operations across the province. We’re challenged with trying to retain and maintain employment within the realistic limits of the budget allocation.

The point the member raised about the --

Mr. Sargent: They have them in Hong Kong and all around the world, why not Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, everything has priorities. You try to rate them accordingly and put people in areas that will service the province. I do not believe that Timmins and North Bay are that far apart that there cannot be a fair degree of communication. I accept the hon. member’s recommendation that our people should establish specific dates when they are going to be present in a particular community in the region in which they are working. I am prepared to accept that, and go to our people in the development corporation to see how feasible it is and how quickly it could be implemented.

Mr. R. S. Smith: They should also use your own offices in that area.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Fair criticism -- accepted. On the relationship I can only report to the House that, as a result of comments that have been made by members to me over the last year or so I was concerned that there was a lack of good understanding between various areas of the ministry. About six weeks ago I brought all field personnel into Toronto and very clearly indicated to them that this position was to change, and that we were going to have a working relationship making maximum use of our personnel and our offices. I hope the hon. member will see within the next short period of time -- when I say short period of time I am referring to weeks -- a change in attitude and a better use of the facilities we have in the field. As for the dates of advertising our presence in the community, we will certainly take it under advisement.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The only other question I have in regard to that matter is as to why it could not be arranged that we might be serviced from the Sudbury office rather than the Timmins office, so that people can go to an office within 80 miles in an hour and a quarter’s drive rather than a four or five-hour drive. I think this makes a major difference.

The other point I would like to make is the slowness of dealing with applications. I know this was brought up by the previous speaker, the member for Thunder Bay, but it has been my experience that by the time a person gets his first meeting with an officer and his approval goes through, it has had to pass first through the officer who he meets with, who he must provide with all the information. Then it comes down to Toronto to the management level committee where they go over it and decide whether or not the first contact officer was right in accepting the application at all. It then goes back to NODC where a decision is made again, based on the recommendations of the management level committee. It goes from NODC to ODC, which then brings it to the minister. It then goes to the cabinet and is finally approved.

After it gets through all those steps, it has taken nothing less than four to six months. If you are dealing in some areas, this may be fine. But if you are dealing in the areas of a straight loan, where there usually is urgency-and where other agencies, such as IDB, are able to give an answer within three to four weeks -- there is no real reason why any agency that is in the business of lending money should take four to six months to make a decision.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I would like the minister to reply.

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to look into the use of the Sudbury office. I am at this moment not clear why we selected Timmins over Sudbury, but I will certainly look into it and find out.

I think I have already explained the slowness of applications. We have offered all the advice and assistance that we could possibly give to our personnel; maybe we do not have enough of them in the field. But their real function is to try to assist the man in completing his application, so that all the details required for a complete review of the application are present at the time it is submitted.

One step you mentioned is not correct. ODC sets policy, which is interpreted by the EODC board and the NODC board. But an application that goes through the board of directors of NODC does not have to be referred to ODC for approval. Once the NODC board recommends an application for approval, it comes to the minister and cabinet.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I didn’t mean it came back to ODC for approval. I meant that it came back to ODC and then to you; it was just a passing through. But there are four or five levels or steps, and I think that is far too many for a lending agency. It may be all right for a granting agency or for venture capital, or for some of the other types of programmes but for those programmes that are basically the lending of money for consideration or at a rate of interest, there is no other institution that takes as long as this does. The IDB is perhaps in a little different business, because they charge a higher interest rate, but they do give an answer in three to four weeks on anything up to $50,000 -- and above that they give an answer in eight weeks.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: I just want to follow up on that very briefly. I want to make it quite clear to the minister that it is possible under the present setup for a person to make application for a loan and be turned down without the board of directors ever having known about the application.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the member could give me some specific examples, I will be glad to look into them. That is not the procedure that is laid down by the government.

Mr. Stokes: I have one right here.

Mr. Roy: Good for you.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Do you want to give it to me?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, I just happen to have it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is good.

Mr. Stokes: I have another question on this vote. I notice for strategic planning you spent $97,000 last year; and this year you are asking for $231,000. Now, the minister made some kind of mention of that in his opening remarks. I don’t know whether that is reflected in the increase you are requesting. You are asking for a sizable amount; more than doubling of the amount of that strategic planning. What specifically are you doing this year that you weren’t doing last year? And what do you hope to achieve by it?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, Mr. Chairman, we have gone from $97,000 a year ago to $231,000 this year.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, last year you did not have a reference to any $97,000. It wasn’t in the estimates at all last year. If you look at the 1973-1974 estimates, there is no reference whatsoever to strategic planning. No item whatsoever. It was not in the estimates last year.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I think if the member looks, he’ll find that figure was included last year in the total sum for the main office operation.

Mr. Sargent: The 1973-1974 main office last year called for salaries and wages, employees benefits, transportation and communications, services, supplies, and equipment -- but there is no reference at all to strategic planning for $97,000.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It was not broken down last year, Mr. Chairman, because it was brought in as a new operation.

Mr. Sargent: Then why did you put it in here as showing in 1973-1974?

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Sargent: That is wrong; completely wrong. It is shown on page R48 that you have a 1973-1974 estimate of $97,000; which you don’t have.

Mr. Roy: We went all through this.

Mr. Sargent: We went all through the whole piece. We are just starting. On the next item you’re out $1 million on one line. So what’s going on, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, we had reallocation of funds last year after the reorganization of the ministry.

Mr. Sargent: I don’t care about that. We have estimates in front of us -- $97,000 in 1973-1974 -- but it was not in the estimates last year.

Mr. Chairman: Will the hon. member for Grey-Bruce let the hon. minister reply, please?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: After the reorganization, Mr. Chairman, there were breakdowns which specifically indicated the various sections in the central office. Strategic planning was one of them that came about as a result of reorganization.

Mr. Sargent: It is not shown in the estimates last year.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There was $97,000 in our overall funds in the central office to cover that particular operation. The member for Thunder Bay, I believe, was asking the question --

Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, where is it shown last year in the estimates?

Mr. Chairman: The Chair rules that that is not a point of order. Will the minister continue?

Mr. Sargent: I challenge your ruling. This man is giving us false information here. It’s not in the estimates of last year, and he said it is here.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The hon. member shall not or should not indicate that the minister is giving false information.

Mr. Sargent: Well, someone is giving it to us, Mr. Chairman. Someone is giving it to us. Can’t you read? Get your book out and see it. It’s not shown there. If you want to play around with $97,000 on this vote, and another $ million on the next estimate -- what is going on? Are we crazy or a bunch of boobs?

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): You are.

Mr. Roy: Well, read your estimates.

Mr. Chairman: Will the hon. member give the minister a chance to reply?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I think I’ve already covered the item that the member for Grey-Bruce is referring to. Last year our estimate for central office was $390,000; $97,000 of it came about as the result of reorganization and the strategic planning being brought in.

To specifically answer the question raised by the member for Thunder Bay on the --

Mr. Sargent: There is your estimate last year -- right there. Now, where is it shown? Read it.

Mr. Chairman: The member will resume his seat. Order please.

Mr. Sargent: What kind of nonsense is this; 97,000 bucks is $97,000.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The member will resume his seat.

Mr. Sargent: It’s not in the book and he’s making a farce of the whole thing.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: To answer the question of the member for Thunder Bay, the development of the policy proposed for consideration by the ministry --

Mr. Sargent: What is your ruling on this, Mr. Chairman? It’s not in the book. Now, how can you give false information to these estimates? If you’re going to go this way, you might as well give the whole damn thing up and forget about it.

Mr. Chairman: I was listening for the minister to complete his explanation --

Mr. Sargent: He has no explanation.

Mr. Chairman: -- and if we all listen, why perhaps we’ll learn something.

Mr. R. S. Smith: He has no explanation.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: My explanation of the central office has been completed, yes. In the preparation of estimates we showed the figure of $390,000, which takes into account an allocation of funds for strategic planning which came about --

Mr. Sargent: Where is it shown?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Just hold on a minute. At the time we dealt with estimates last year, the reorganization was not a finalized position of the ministry, it still had to have Management Board approval, but provisions of funds within the allocation were being allowed for strategic planning.

Mr. Sargent: Well, then you can’t really believe these estimates then. You can’t believe them.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: You certainly can, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Roy: Where do you have the item?

Mr. Chairman: The minister has answered the question, I assume.

Mr. Roy: It’s not there.

Mr. Chairman: If the member is not satisfied, I’m sorry but he will have to speak with the minister after.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Sargent: What good is that book?

Mr. R. S. Smith: That is a stupid rule.

Mr. Chairman: We’re not going to debate this. The minister has answered the question, to the best of his ability.

Mr. Sargent: Well I am sorry, but I’m telling you your estimates are all wrong.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): It is not in.

Mr. Chairman: The minister will proceed.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: In answer to the member for Thunder Bay regarding strategic planning, we have employed extra people. We have moved some away from other divisions of the ministry into one central location so that we can try and truly look at the long range strategic planning of the ministry and what we’re trying to accomplish. And as a result of it, we have increased the personnel by two and we have the overall cost of it. It will now be $231,000. We have an increased allocation there, $50,000 for anticipated outside consulting studies that will be required by the strategic planning branch in referring to items specifically referred from other branches of the ministry.

Mr. Stokes: So that’s $50,000 for consulting and two employees. That’s a pretty healthy increase, from $97,000 to $231,000, just for those two items.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, there’s no doubt about it that the figure of $50,000 is in anticipation of studies that we could very well be required to carry out in trying to come to some determination in long range planning. The two extra personnel -- and if you follow through on our personnel we have a total increase of, I think, 26 over the year -- We have moved some various divisions into strategic planning. And the other related costs -- of course in benefits -- some of it relates to inflationary positions and salaries, but overall the increase in salaries is from $82,000 to $147,000.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Could I just ask you a question on this? This doesn’t include anything for Maple Mountain?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No sir.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s under another vote?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is correct.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Yes, I want to find out where we’re going on this, Mr. Chairman, about your ruling here? Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Minister; do I understand my colleague from Grey-Bruce is saying that you show in your 1974-1975 estimates, estimates of $97,000 for 1973-1974, for strategic planning which weren’t included in your estimates last year? That’s all he’s asking. What is the explanation of that?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: They were included, sir, under the total vote. But this time, because of the reorganization of strategic planning now becoming a separate entity, we have broken it down into the two figures. We had $97,000 in the overall vote last year as relates to $231,000 in the current year.

Mr. Stokes: It is broken down.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It has been broken down into the two figures.

Mr. Bullbrook: Do you have a copy of last year’s estimates? You say you’ve got it broken down; we can’t find it at all.

Mr. Stokes: It was in the main office vote last year.

Mr. Bullbrook: It was in the main office vote?

Mr. Stokes: Last year.

Mr. Bullbrook: All right, in your main office vote, just as a matter of interest. Here are your items in your main office votes. Salaries and wages. Is that strategic planning?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Part of it.

Mr. Bullbrook: Part of it. So what you are saying in effect is what you show now as strategic planning, we couldn’t, in assessing your estimates, come to a conclusion as to what that was referable to last year?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s right.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s right. So my colleague from Grey-Bruce has a point.

I wanted to question the minister if I could on a general responsibility that you might have as minister. Do you have any responsibility in connection with your ministerial function in guiding the Treasurer in granting exemptions under the Land Transfer Tax Act where there is an acquisition by a foreign-controlled corporation of an Ontario corporation?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do. When there is an application made by particular industry, whether it be foreign or not on this item, it is referred to our ministry for some input.

Mr. Bullbrook: Do you agree with the following? I quoted this last Tuesday night. It’s a speech made by the Treasurer of Ontario to the Canadian Society of New York on Sept. 10, 1974. In addressing himself to the exemption criteria, he spoke as follows:

“In determining whether a land purchase is of a significant benefit to the province, the government is guided by various criteria, such as whether the purchase will result in the creation of new employment where this is desirable.”

That’s the first one, the creation of new employment.

Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth North): That’s good.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’m not saying it’s wrong or bad, I’m just putting it forward as one of the criteria.

“Whether it will increase exports or replacements for imports.” That’s the second one.

“Whether it will bring about development in northern or eastern Ontario.” That’s the third one.

I want to put the question to the minister since he admits he has input and the ministry has input. How does the minister rationalize these criteria in connection with the exemption of $800,000 given Babcock and Wilcox in the acquisition of Homes Insulation at Sarnia?

The minister in speaking to the Canadian Society says, “To illustrate how the exemptions are being applied” -- and you’ll notice he says “how the exemptions are being applied,” he went on:

” -- I can cite the case of a Sarnia company called Homes Insulation, which was sold to a US firm, Babcock and Wilcox. In this case, the purchaser was granted exemption [now listen to this] because the purchaser would preserve 100 jobs.”

Now, it’s interesting, and I’m not going to get into semantics. His criteria is the creation of new jobs. He says nothing about the stabilization of existing employment; he says nothing about that at all. Then he says, “We granted that $800,000 exemption purely for the purpose, purely for the purpose, of stabilization of employment.”

I would like your consideration of this. I represent just about as economically overheated an area as there is in the Dominion of Canada, not just the Province of Ontario. There is no doubt about that. I want to know what your ministry did.

What investigation did you undertake in connection with the integrity of the Canadian management of Homes Insulation and their situation as to whether they would in fact go out of business? I want to ask you how you rationalize being involved in this.

The other criterion your Treasurer says, is the development of industry in northern and eastern Ontario -- and this is what concerns me more than anything else. I got no response the other night at all, not even an indoor type of response, to these questions.

Of course I believe, as I trust you believe, that government should be a government of law and not of men. You cannot permit this type of discretionary exemption unless it is particularized with respect to the objective criteria that are to be met. If we are to permit Babcock and Wilcox to extricate themselves from an obligation under one of our taxing statutes to the tune of $800,000, I want to know why you did it. I’m very much interested in what input there was, what investigation took place, what recommendations you made and what basis you used your recommendations.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I’ll have to get the information on Babcock and Wilcox. As for the one on Homes Insulation, let me say to you that a point that our ministry looks at constantly is the retention of jobs.

Mr. Bullbrook: You realize that wasn’t used.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It’s entirely up to the Treasurer as to what he uses in his speeches. When we are asked what’s the need for --

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t mean to be argumentative. What I’m very much interested in is your input. When the Treasurer speaks to the Canadian Society one would believe that he’s talking about government policy, not something that he fabricated himself ab initio but that he developed as a matter of policy in conjunction with those colleagues in the cabinet who are responsible. He says to the Canadian Society in New York that our first criterion is the creation of new employment; nowhere does he say the stabilization of existing employment. I believe that he said that he made a valid point.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I’m sorry, but to further answer your question, the very point that you’ve raised is one of the criteria that we use within the ministry in drawing together our report to the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) -- because he is really the individual that we report back to. One is certainly the creation of new employment in the areas that it will affect in the province. Second is to try and improve our export position and reduce the import content, if possible. Third in the ministry is the retention of employment. I can think of Homes as being one case and I can think of Electrolux down in Brockville area, which was a second. Very clearly we could help to maintain stability of that industry in their community. Those are the criteria that we’ve been using in recommending it.

Now the Treasurer will submit his position, as will the Minister of Revenue, and it will eventually go to cabinet for some action. Specifically relating to Babcock and Wilcox, I will get the information for you.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’d be very much interested in the complete understanding. I suppose my mind is becoming warped about this particular thing. This is the third time in a week that I’ve spoken about this because this type of thing lends itself to an almost tragicomedy situation, where you get people like John Blunt crying poor mouse, as he has for years. Blunt is the author of Homes Insulation. When he had Homes Foundries before he sold it to American Motors he cried for years that he couldn’t put in environmental control equipment as he never had the money for it, and we had to live through that.

I well understand that you are going to now supply me with the internal working papers that you had, the investigation that you undertook and the criteria that you developed in making your recommendations to cabinet. I’m very much interested in this.

You see if you are doing this type of job -- which I think you are not. I know that you have the responsibility, but if it is you who has the responsibility and if you had to go to Sarnia, for example, and if you have to look at Sarnia and you have to look at the criteria and you had to talk to Blunt and you had to say, “What’s your financial position? Is there a market elsewhere? Can we assist you through ODC over the problems?” this type of thing -- are you doing this? Or is it easier to say that Blunt tells you he just can’t keep going?

This is really what I am interested in. I make no bones about this -- I have already been told; it has been implied, I’ve absolutely no proof of it -- that this thing is leading itself to nothing but developing the coffers of the Tory party. And it is easy to see how it could. Just listen, I was the one who said I had no proof of this, but consider for a moment -- you are not going to bang that gavel surely?

Mr. Chairman: I would bring the time to the attention of the hon. member. We are going to private members’ hour.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am sorry. Do you want me to move the adjournment of the debate?

Mr. Chairman: The House leader will and we will continue with the debate after.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): By agreement, and I think the hon. members will understand.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR: PROVINCIAL TRAILS ACT

Mr. Deacon moves second reading of Bill 74, An Act respecting Provincial Trails.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, six years ago, after some of us spent a rather busy summer with the select committee on taxation, two of us -- the member for Peel South (Mr. Kennedy) and myself -- went off on a youth hostel charter overseas. My wife and myself decided to go on to Switzerland where we thought we would like to enjoy some of the scenery of that beautiful mountain country.

Shortly after we got ourselves established above the eastern end of Lake Geneva -- I forget the name of the lake right now -- we noticed that there was a place where you got off at the top of the inclined railway that had a list of trails you could take. There was a blue trail you could cover in an hour’s walk, another trail for 2½ hours, a yellow trail for five hours and a green trail for a 12-hour walk. We decided we would go off and follow one of these trails one day and we had a very, very interesting two- or three-hour walk through private lands owned by the local farmers.

There was one occasion when I decided I would try my French and see how well I could find out how these trails were operated -- how they were maintained. The trails were really pleasant, because they took you away from the busy roads and into the back meadows and lovely areas where it was very, very pleasant.

In talking to a local farmer, I asked him how it was that he was prepared to have public footpaths existing through his farmland. He said it was by agreement with the local authorities. He was provided with an incentive to maintain the stiles so that people could walk over the fences and look after that trail within his area. Apparently there is a government programme that is worked out in co-operation with local citizens. They look after these trails and their maintenance.

We found many of these trails existed in other parts of Switzerland. You could take a train to a town, pick up a trail in some direction off the beaten track and take a bus back to where you originated, so you had no problem about having to walk on heavily travelled roads. You could get away into the countryside and enjoy it. The countryside was countryside. It was not government parks or anything of that sort but private lands, where you could stop and talk to the local citizens and ask them questions about their homes and conditions. It was a very, very pleasant situation.

In Ontario, I had already known about the Bruce Trail. I decided to join that organization to find out more about what they had developed. I have since done quite a bit of hiking on that trail and have got to know others who are involved in the Federation of Ontario Hiking and Trail Associations and others who are interested in riding trails and the establishment of trails generally.

I think they have accomplished a great deal without any government support in leadership, but every year, for example, the Bruce Trail people have to come through with actual changes in the route to take care of the local changes in ownership, where one owner doesn’t want to have the trail going through his land. It sometimes cuts out some very attractive portions of the trail. It’s regrettable, but that is the problem of having these trails run over purely private lands.

My wife has been interested in the establishment of a circle-type trail in our own area -- we call it the Rouge Trail -- and it has been successful to a degree. There are a great many problems in establishing these trails, for which I think there is going to be an increasing demand.

It wasn’t very long ago that the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare published the results of a study of the state of health of Canadians. We certainly didn’t come out looking very healthy. We were overweight and underexercised. The cost of our health care in this province is soaring at such a rate that we certainly have to look at what they do in other countries, particularly in the Scandinavian countries where we find that the cost of health care -- and a very high standard of health care -- is far below ours on a per capita basis.

If one goes to the Scandinavian countries or Switzerland or some of these other countries, one is immediately impressed by the good condition of the people. They are out hiking around the country. The Norwegians are amazing that way. On a trip to Norway a year and a half ago, I was amazed at the numbers that go off and take advantage of the trail facilities and the opportunities that they have developed in that country.

This gets the public out of the dense cities where sometimes people feel very confined, which causes great problems. I think it is important that we recognize that this has not been done by buying up extensive public lands at great public expense, but most of this has been developed on private property and with the co-operation of the citizens themselves.

Of course, there is a lot more. I have mentioned just two types of trails, the hiking and the skiing trails. Far more than that is needed to take care of the interests of people in this country. We have a great many snowmobilers and we’ve had an extensive select committee study made of that hobby and of its needs. In addition to snowmobiling, we have dirt-track bikes. Some of us have sons who are interested in that type of fun and recreation. Others love driving around in dune buggies.

That type of activity just doesn’t mix with that of those who want to go off and ski or cycle or horseback ride. We have to recognize that that is a recreation and a recreational need that we should provide for in making our plans about the development of trails in this province.

We have to think about those who like to go off in canoes. There are many different types of trails, but actually many uses are compatible. We could, for example, combine trails that are suitable for hiking and cross-country skiing, while those for cycling can perhaps to some extent be combined with horseback riding, although I think usually the horses loosen up a path sufficiently that it makes it a little difficult to ride on a bike.

As for canoe routes, I don’t think we have quite as much of a need for that in this country. At least my own experience is that there are plenty of canoe routes available in our public parks and in our extensive systems of lakes and rivers. I personally have not had much difficulty in finding a good route for a canoe trip. Maybe there is a need for that too, but in any event we must recognize when we think about trails that there are different interests, and different types would have to be developed.

I also think we should recognize the fact that not everybody should have to use a car to go everywhere. For example on the Bruce Trail, right now it’s impossible -- at least I’ve found it impossible -- to go by bus to a certain point where the Trail intersects one of our highways, then hike along the Bruce to another point where you can also get a bus or some form of public transit, back to where you started. You really have to double back on your route. That isn’t nearly as pleasant as being able to take a journey and have a means of getting back to your starting point without difficulty.

These are things we have to think about when we are developing arterial systems. Circle routes are another interesting type of trail where in effect they, in the walk, come back to the point of origin. This is particularly good in built-up areas where people may want to get to the end of a transportation system and take a walking tour for an hour or two, then get back on the public transit facility.

We certainly want to encourage that, and encourage the development of facilities such as inns on these routes so that people can get away from the built-up areas into the open country and enjoy a brief respite.

The cost of trail systems doesn’t have to be heavy. The Bruce Trail system is maintained by the Bruce Trail Association. If any member hikes on it he will find that they have kept it in good condition. Club members make a point of picking up any litter that those who are careless happen to leave along the pathways.

It would be impractical for us to think in terms of buying all that 400-and-some odd miles of trailway and the other extensive trails that have been laid out around this province. So we are having to deal with private landowners and it’s important that in dealing with that, we recognize we must have willingness on their part, which is only possible if there’s responsible use of the trails by the users.

To persuade people initially to do this, it’s important we give them some incentive for making available use of their lands to the general public. For example, I think it would be a mistake for us to give lower assessment opportunities to golf courses unless we also require of them access footpaths for the public, and at some point take advantage of that open space, perhaps along their borders. Most have routes where they could lay out a public footpath without disturbing the golfers or having the hikers in any danger.

In Britain, I have noticed footpaths through many of the golf courses. Maybe they were established a long time ago, but certainly it’s much more attractive to be able to walk in the open countryside like that than to be in a built-up area. It’s important we maintain these areas by some similar incentive. Open space in itself is not an advantage unless the public can get access to it. The same would be true for private developers. Maybe we have got to think in terms of purchasing the development rights, or even expropriate development rights, to ensure construction is not permitted on open space if it’s going to interfere with an access route to some particularly lovely bit of countryside.

However, concerns have arisen in recent years about the legal position of property owners. The recent Falconbridge trespass case alarmed me as a property-owner. I am really concerned about what can happen to all of us who have property when a trespasser is injured and we find ourselves, through no fault of our own, in a lawsuit that could be very costly. I would think that sort of legal position is something we have to deal with.

The property damage experience of the Bruce Trail is not great, but it certainly is one that we have to provide for in any legislation.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, there has been a very large movement of people over the last number of years from the rural areas of the country to the big cities. The confined space in which they are having to live because of high land costs creates very serious social problems in addition to the health problems -- the fact they don’t get enough exercise. It is important that we provide the public with more open space and easier access to that open space. We can’t do it just through publicly owned land. A system of trails in the province for walking, for cycling, for riding, for other outdoor activities, is an important method by which we can give people of this country a sense of appreciation of the countryside itself. Certainly it would develop a sense of responsibility at the same time, because I am sure under the system we have built up people can be made to feel more responsible for maintaining the countryside.

But it needs a co-ordinated effort; it needs leadership by this government. The government can and should justify it through the benefits of the reductions it could bring to our health care costs alone -- both mental health and physical health. I am interested that those involved in the trails movement wish this to happen.

I was very pleased a year and a half or so ago when the hon. Bert Lawrence, then the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, organized a trails symposium. That was a very good start. I have a letter from the president of the Ontario Hiking Trail Associations, Mr. Henry Graupner, who says:

“Hikers, the federation and I all welcome any initiative from whatever source toward the establishment of new trails, the preservation of existing trails, and the increase of opportunities for beneficial outdoor recreational activities.

“With the example of well-known trails in front of us, such as the Appalachian Trail in the United States, and the Bruce Trail, a number of groups have organized to establish and maintain hiking trails in Ontario for the enjoyment and use both of their own members and the public at large. Most sections of these trails run over private property, which is possible only with the goodwill of the landowners.

“You are no doubt aware that the Ministry of Natural Resources held the Ontario trails symposium last summer, and is currently studying details of legislation to be introduced [along the same lines as proposed in my bill]. We would therefore ask for your support of the government plans at the appropriate time.”

Mr. Speaker, it is a long time since that trail symposium was held. The need is now greater than ever, and I hope that the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman) will follow the lead taken by his predecessor and move. His predecessor moved, but there has been a long and I think --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Deafening silence.

Mr. Deacon: -- deafening silence since the present minister took over. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge that this House approve and support this move to get an organized programme of provincial trails under way in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to join in this debate and to salute the member for York Centre for bringing this vital issue of managing and regulating provincial trails to the attention of this House.

I generally endorse the hon. member’s objectives and purposes for introducing An Act respecting Provincial Trails. There is no doubt in the public’s mind and in the minds of Ontario legislators in particular, that we must carefully preserve and protect our natural resources throughout this province, so as to enable future generations to enjoy and make a complete use of our natural environment.

As our cities grow ever larger and more and more people are concentrating in larger built-up areas, it is inevitable that you will create a whole series of problems linked to that overcrowding. Cities have their own buildup in growth dynamics and have an almost magnetic attraction for those people who live in our smaller towns and villages throughout the province. Particularly is this true of our younger people as they want to savour new experiences and gain new perspectives on life through employment in our cities.

However, the old cliché of the revolutionizing of expectations extends throughout our whole population. Residents of our cities want to get out of those cities to enjoy the benefits of our natural environment, to release their social tensions and simply to relax by getting back to nature. The residents of our smaller centres naturally expect that the same recreational amenities of life should be extended to them as well, and so they should. The benefits of recreation should be available on an equal basis to all people, regardless of where they live. Within this context I can understand and appreciate the member’s concern for introducing this bill.

On first impression the bill’s major intent appears to be on developing a coherent provincial trails philosophy and a realistic policy-making mechanism found in the Trail Advisory council.

I can’t quarrel with the necessity for a strong provincial trails policy; in fact, I endorse such a thing. I do have several reservations with respect to: (1) overall classifications of trails, (2) the composition of the proposed trails Advisory Council, and (3) the basic objectives for this council.

I think I am on solid ground in saying that the hon. member for York Centre is a well-known hiker and walker. Possibly it is out of his own personal experiences that he has classified trails as either being scenic, historic, primitive or river trails, refusing to establish any other classification which may be found necessary in the circumstances. By such classifications he may have had in mind those types of clubs and organizations devoted to hiking, cross-country skiing or snowshoeing activities in the main. What equal recognition is given to the newer and even motorized outdoor activities such as snowmobiling or trail biking? He has mentioned those as possible activities in this province needing trails.

In my own riding we have several very active snowmobile groups and within the lands of the Haliburton Forest and Wildlife Co., we have 90,000 acres of trail that cover this entire tract. It is a private operation and they charge a fee, but anyone can go in there after paying the fee. It is controlled, it is supervised, they maintain the trails and manicure them to a high extent. We have had several members of this House who have visited that land and their operations, and have had high comments to make about them.

In examining the proposed composition of the council in this bill, I can see several inherent problems derived from its proposed makeup. For example, I am not quite certain as to the necessity for a district forester or parks superintendent to be on that body. While it is understandable that a representative of the conservation authority should be included, what provision is there for municipal input? As to specifying a member of a pilot user organization, what criteria would be applied in his appointment? Would the representative of a trail and hiking club sufficiently be capable of representing the interests of the snowmobile fraternity, or the riding fraternity, bird watching or cross-country skiing? Yes, we have a lot of bird people who walk on trails to observe. And they don’t want to walk straight through; they want to stop and see and look. We have quite a bit of that developing in this province.

Some of my other reservations centre on the overall purposes of the new body as proposed in the bill. The council would compile and evaluate information on any matter concerning provincial trails and study and make recommendations concerning their administration. It would appear that the Trail Advisory Council would be clearly oriented to internal advisory and administrative problems and would not necessarily concern itself with the very complex issues of provincial trails on private property. In this sense, the bill is inadequate to cover the issues of accessibility, liability and a comprehensive integrated provincial trails plan for the whole province.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, what is required is the forging of a new relationship or set of relationships between the private user clubs, the government and the public.

Back in June, as the member has mentioned, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the hon. Bert Lawrence sponsored a provincial trails planning symposium. They approached the problems and issues relating to provincial trails planning in a greater in-depth approach than the present bill offers. The reports which came from that meeting offered a more forward-looking philosophy and approach to resolving the issues of trail planning and development.

I would commend these reports to the hon. members of this House and suggest that they be the central means of implementing a comprehensive trails plan policy for the next decade.

We have, in this province, many unopened road allowances that could be opened and developed and become part of a major trail system. We have several trails like the Bruce and the Peterson, which is in my riding and goes from one side of it to the other practically, from Georgian Bay to the Ottawa Valley. We should have stopover places designed and incorporated in those trails. We have, in our area, many Indian trails which could be defined by the province and the Ministry of Natural Resources and made into multiple-use trails.

There is no doubt that snowmobile trails could be used for horse riding through the summer months or for walking trails for the other off-season use. There is no doubt that the Ministry of Natural Resources should work with the snowmobile clubs, who do much volunteer work in organizing, developing, designing and maintaining trails. There should be in the Ministry of Natural Resources’ estimates sufficient funds to undertake this task in the year ahead and the years in the future.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: I would like to join with the mover of this bill, and the member who has just spoken, in lending my support in principle to the aims and the objectives of Bill 74.

I find that the bill itself is not nearly specific enough to meet the needs of people generally throughout the province. We had considerable dialogue with many, many people throughout the province when we were travelling around on the select committee on snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles, and we noticed that there was a great deal of conflict between the various users and those seeking an outdoor recreational or a wilderness experience. There was a tremendous amount of conflict and acrimony among the various users who were aspiring to the same piece of property for their own specific use.

Can you imagine somebody going along on horseback and somebody else tearing up the same trail with a dune buggy or one of these all-terrain vehicles that rides on a cushion of air, spewing huge amounts of sand and gravel in the eyes of a bird watcher or someone who is an ordinary hiker? Or can you imagine the conflict that you would have between someone going along cross-country skiing when somebody else comes along with a 90-hp snowmobile going at 60 mph and not knowing where he was going or how he was going to get there?

Section 3 of the hon. member’s bill simply states:

“The provincial trails are hereby dedicated and declared to be held in trust for the people of the Province of Ontario and others who may use them for their benefit, education and enjoyment, and the provincial trails shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”

I need not tell the House that if you let a dune buggy run over a trail it won’t even last till the end of the week. If the members are concerned at all about the environmental consequences, we witnessed some of the degradation of the environment as a result of the indiscriminate use of many, many wilderness areas across the province.

However, having said that, I think that it was made quite clear to us that it is absolutely essential that we do provide areas that should be specifically set aside for recreational purposes, not only to take care of the needs of the hiker, the bird watcher, the trail-bike rider.

I think we have to be careful that we don’t set up a trail system that allows for the indiscriminate use of Crown land and thereby destroys the main purpose of establishing trails in the first place. As you will see in the recommendations we made, particularly for snowmobilers, our primary concern was to get them off the road where they don’t mix with other road vehicles. But we felt at the same time that because they were a legitimate means of recreation, and because of the rather large licence and registration fee we were charging them, we had a responsibility to provide them with an area to give vent to their feelings.

This was expressed at the trails symposium alluded to by the two previous speakers. That report is in the hands of the government. Hopefully this session or before another winter goes by, we will have some kind of legislation that will take care of the tremendous problems we are going to continue to have until we come to grips with the snowmobile problem as seen in many areas where they are now banned. They are going to continue to be banned until we provide an outlet for them by way of a trail system that can be maintained and supervised with the dollars from the registration fee.

I want to remind the hon. members there are many other sorts of recreational vehicles coming on the market. With no guidelines set down by any ministry of any government as to safety and mechanical standards that must be met. There are no standards saying you can’t impair beach areas where people are enjoying a swim or a picnic; there are no areas specifically set aside for wildlife propagation. I think we have to come up with a system whereby this government can designate specific areas for specific uses to minimize the conflict that has already arisen in many instances and is bound to arise as a result of people’s need to get out and express themselves in different ways.

You, Mr. Speaker, being very quiet and calm, cool and collected, might want to go out for an ordinary hike, as envisaged by the mover of this motion. Or you might wish to take out a set of binoculars and look at birds and other flora and fauna on your way. Then you might get somebody as rambunctious as the assistant clerk of the House on a 140-mile-an-hour snowmobile, or one of those Yamahas they use as trail bikes, invading the privacy you hold so dear.

So I think, in talking about trails, we have to recognize the kind of pursuits people will follow these days. The activities they think as recreational outlets are as varied as anything you would care to mention. There is the horseback rider, the fellow with the dune buggy, and a proliferation of mechanical devices designed to extract more dollars from people’s pockets which are going to continue to be a problem for any government and all jurisdictions.

I think it is high time we had a rational provincial trails programme in this province. The province has to take the lead, particularly in southern Ontario where there is very little Crown land left for this kind of activity. Of course it is going to cost far too much to lease this land from private owners. I don’t think that kind of programme is going to work. But we have a lot of areas such as abandoned railway lines, transmission and other utility corridors that can be used for the express purpose outlined by the member who introduced this bill. We do have many options left open to us, but if we are going to provide this recreational outlet for an increasing number of urban dwellers who want to get out from the asphalt jungle, I think the province has to take the lead.

I don’t see this bill as the vehicle that will solve all of those ills, but I will commend the member for having brought it to the attention of the Legislature and for providing members of all parties an opportunity to express their views on it.

I think one of my colleagues will have something further to say on it, time permitting. It is something that deserves the attention of this government and I hope it doesn’t procrastinate any longer in coming forward with some kind of a programme that will provide trails for everybody in the entire province, regardless of where they live and regardless of what their pursuits are.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill 74 introduced by my colleague, the member for York Centre. I would sincerely hope that this bill would be given every consideration, as I have personally had considerable experience in working with outdoor education groups and I realize the unlimited use that can be made of trails for educational and recreational purposes.

To date, the responsibility for providing provincial trails has been to the largest extent left up to local trail interest groups. There are now seven major provincial trail organizations, namely, the Bruce, Guelph, Grand Bend, Thames Valley, Quinte, Hastings, Gananoque and Rideau Trail Associations. However, there has been little initiative by any government ministry to provide a comprehensive programme for a province-wide trail system. Today there is a great need for the government to provide more and varied recreational facilities through provincial trails and to ensure the quality of existing and future trails.

The Bruce Trail as an example, Mr. Speaker, has been widely used and has been in much greater demand than the local trail interest groups believed it would be in its initial stages. The Bruce Trail and other trails are presently being used to quite a large extent by teachers acquainting students more visually with such academic subjects as geology and biology. The trails are also widely used by outdoor recreation groups such as secondary school outers’ clubs. The trails are used by family weekend groups and by such organizations as Boy Scouts and similar such associations.

The trails provide winter activities such as snowshoeing, snowmobile and winter campouts, which are certainly increasing in popularity as we well know. People simply want to get away from the cities during all times of the year and, believe it or not, open space for outdoor activities for these people is very much lacking at the present time.

Unfortunately, land speculators have consumed land in such areas as the Niagara Escarpment, which we know now should have been preserved for use by the general public. As a result of this speculation, the Bruce Trail had to be diverted around private homes that were built on the edge of the escarpment. If new trails are now established by local interest groups rather than the Province of Ontario, then permission has to be obtained from the owners of the property, but in light of the fact that ownership changes one can foresee the problems that could quite conceivably occur.

I have been trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, that growing demand for more recreational space in Ontario is facing government with an urgent challenge. In southern Ontario, as a result of the process of urbanization, many natural trail locations are no longer usable. The situation is most acute in the areas surrounding the larger metropolitan centres of the province. There must be effective government participation today in order that natural trails might be guaranteed for the Ontario public in the future.

It is now very important to preserve public open space where people may engage in simple, non-energy-consuming recreation, both close to and away from centres of population. It must be the responsibility of the government to ensure that all existing trails are adequately protected and maintained.

Since individual trail interest groups have shown that they can work most effectively in the creation of trail systems, their activities should certainly be encouraged. However, it should be the responsibility of government to maintain these trails and to provide for the protection of private land-owners against liability if someone is hurt on trails that run through their property.

At present, trail clubs usually enter into some form of agreement with private landowners which allows the trail to run through their property. This method is common because trail-interest groups do not usually have sufficient funds for purchases.

However, through this method there is no guarantee that the agreement for right of access will be maintained, and the private landowner is not protected against liability.

Recently, as was previously mentioned, there has been great concern by landowners over a Supreme Court of Canada decision which awarded a snowmobiler $30,000 who had run into an obstruction on private land near Sudbury. The snowmobiler was driving on Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd. property without permission when the accident occurred. The precedent which is set is truly frightening for private landowners. This is one of the reasons why private landowners are often hesitant to allow trails to cross their lands. Therefore, some formal agreements are necessary so that landowners are absolved from any liability.

Since it is now possible for a private landowner to be held responsible when no permission for entry to his land is granted, surely he will not permit trails through his land without some legislation where he will be absolved from liability.

These are just a few of the remarks I wish to make at this time, Mr. Speaker, in support of Bill 74. As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, I sincerely hope that the province will give favourable consideration to the establishment of such trails.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. David.

Mrs. M. Scrivener (St. David): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on a proposal by the hon. member for York Centre for An Act respecting Provincial Trails, since this is a subject in which I have been interested for a number of years.

I, too, am familiar with the report of the first Ontario trails symposium, a symposium which was held in June, 1973. I have discussed the findings of the symposium and other findings at a public meeting with some of my constituents in the riding of St. David. St. David, as you may know, Mr. Speaker, is blessed with a fine system of ravines and citizens of the area are interested, as I am, in increasing and enhancing this existing system of nature trails. I would remind you that such trails within a city can be as enjoyable as those located in non-urban environments.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for York Centre in bringing this issue of trail planning policy before members of this Legislature. I can understand the hon. member’s intentions and motivations in the light of our every growing urbanization, industrialization and the many social problems inherent in those two processes. I can appreciate the underlying philosophy offered by this bill and the hon. member’s concern for providing a vehicle that will protect and preserve provincial trails for future generations.

Upon further examination of this bill, I can see that he is basically concerned with public jurisdiction of provincial trails and their specific use on Crown land. While there is some merit in providing a vehicle for the care, preservation, improvement, control and management of the provincial trails, the bill itself does not address itself to the numerous problems of conflicting trail use, liability disputes related to the access of these trails on private land, land-use controls adjacent to these provincial trails or the overall roles of private trail organizations, the government and the public.

The very composition of the proposed Trail Advisory Council as contained in the bill does not satisfactorily resolve either a real or potential conflict over the use of any proposed trail system. Nor does it suggest who or which group is to ultimately decide whether a particular trail should be designated for bicycle use, snowmobiling purposes or hiking activities.

I can say without any hesitation that the government itself does not have all the knowledge or expertise to make that basic decision. The government’s view of its role is not to be that of a referee in any future or potential conflict, but rather to serve in a co-ordinating and co-operative function.

In devising a comprehensive and integrated provincial trails policy, the government of Ontario is currently encouraging worthwhile participation, not only from private trail clubs but also from landowners affected by any proposed or existing trail network. It is desirous of obtaining a real policy input from the private sector regarding provincial trail policy.

I think that groups like the Ganaraska, Bruce or Quinte-Hastings associations have a better understanding of local conditions, as well as the ability to go about using local and regional resources. That is why I think the Trail Advisory Council as proposed in this bill is deficient in not providing for a real local or municipal contribution.

As the urbanizing and industrial processes intensify the pressures for a larger number and a more varied type of trails, all parties involved in developing a realistic and rational trails policy must resolve the problem of liability disputes. Land and property owners all over the Province of Ontario have developed differing attitudes toward the use of provincial trails which impinge on private property. That is, the nature of the issue is whether private trail organizations should have accessibility to private lands.

In a recent decision before the Ontario Supreme Court, involving Kerr Addison Mines and a private snowmobiler, the judge saw fit to award damages to the trespasser. This decision was made even in the light of the snowmobiler’s full knowledge that he had violated the Petty Trespass Act. Such a decision raises very serious questions and places private property owners in a real quandary. The private property owner begins to think that the fewer people on his land, the less the liability to be incurred. Such an attitude is not very encouraging in the light of ever-increasing public demand for more and different trails.

Unfortunately, nowhere in this bill do I see an attempt to confront and satisfactorily resolve this fairly complex legal problem, although I am pleased to note that the mover of the bill and the member for Huron have acknowledged this deficiency.

Are there any real solutions for this very knotty matter? Some jurisdictions have opted for either a formalized or informal agreement between landowners and trail clubs. These jurisdictions have opted for a legislated approach to the matter. In Ontario, many trail clubs have entered into formal agreements with landowners because these trail groups do not possess sufficient funds for either permanent easements or outright purchases.

Aside from the statutory approach, other solutions could involve insurance plans to protect either the landowner or the trail user against possible suits in the courts. Still, I suppose the waiver approach could form a third alternative to resolving liability problems. A trail club could sign a waiver with a private landowner which absolves the landowner of any liability. In turn, a user could sign a waiver which absolves the club of any liability. Whatever avenue of agreement is reached, this particular bill is faulty in that it does not address itself to this important issue.

Another major problem of great concern to property owners is the impact which provincial trails will have upon private lands. The presence of a provincial trails network would undoubtedly lead to restrictions on the private land adjacent to these trails and thereby determine the land use values for the lands.

I raise this as part of the issue for debate, not so much out of a defence of private landowners, but to suggest very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that the bill we are debating is quite deficient in this regard. Until these problems and other issues are satisfactorily resolved between property owners and a vast assortment of trail interest clubs, until the provincial government has clearly established a comprehensive provincial trails policy fully supported by all groups involved, and until the appropriate organizational arrangements and funding of priorities are totally set out, I do not believe that this particular bill, nor most of the provisions contained in it, satisfactorily determine the inter-relationships between the public and private sectors on this highly complex issue.

I am interested in and support the principle of the bill, but find it quite limited in its concept, which is regrettable. However, I can reassure the hon. member for York Centre and all others who share this interest that it is my understanding this entire matter is under current consideration and has a very high priority with this government.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Like all other social legislation, nothing ever happens.

Mr. Speaker: Any further speakers? Yes, the hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this bill regarding An Act respecting Provincial Trails. I think the person presenting the bill has caught the principle which is required to solve the problem which is facing the people of Ontario now. The member for York Centre has been on the trail very often. He was on the leadership trail a few months ago and he got 14 votes, so he knows what it is to be on the trail.

I’m surprised at the parliamentary assistant’s statement that she has to wait on certain input from the people of Ontario before the government sees fit to react to the information it already has. I’m sure she’s aware of the very fine work that the all-terrain vehicles committee did when they did a survey on behalf of snowmobiles -- it did encompass other areas of trails as well as snowmobiles and hovercraft. It covered all aspects of all-terrain vehicles and there’s abundant information there on which the government could formulate policy.

Coupled with that was the trail symposium which was called by the hon. A. B. P. Lawrence in June of 1973.

Mr. Laughren: That was his finest hour.

Mr. Germa: Yes, he was in high form that day. We had trail riders of every description.

Mr. Stokes: Until he went down the trail.

Mr. Germa: We had horseback riders, snowshoers, skiers, canoe trailers, snowmobilers, hovercraft people. We had every manner of person who would be interested in this kind of an activity, and they did present their needs and requirements to the government of Ontario. There were reports written of what had transpired and the government at that time, the minister, seemed to be in agreement that this influx of information would lead to the bringing in of legislation, I’m surprised that the government hasn’t acted on the information that it has at hand already.

I cannot accept the minister’s statement about the conflict that will be evident with private landowners if the province were to institute a system of trails in the Province of Ontario. It is just not a valid argument. Of course, she puts more focus or more importance on private ownership of land. I don’t have that much respect for private ownership of land, so there’s a fundamental difference between her and me as far as putting in trails is concerned.

I think when we address ourselves to this problem that we have to think in two theatres. We have the southern Ontario theatre, where I admit you’ll have a difficult time gaining access and rights of way, in order to institute this kind of a system which would provide for the recreation of people. But I would suggest that there is nothing preventing the government from going ahead in northern Ontario where 95 per cent of the land is still in Crown ownership. So we don’t have the problem of private ownership to deal with.

Coupled with that there are thousands of miles of trails not designated as trails at this moment. I have studied maps which show abandoned mining roads -- roads which led to a mine which is now defunct. This is part of the problem in northern Ontario. Once the natural resource is depleted, the mining company moves out with its profits and leaves the --

An hon. member: Hole.

Mr. Germa: -- road it cut through the forest, and leaves the buildings. I think the government should take advantage of this facility where these trails have already been brushed out. Naturally some are overgrown by now. They’ve been abandoned for many years. There are also abandoned lumber roads where timber operators went in and depleted the forest. All we have left is the trail through the forest and maybe the odd bridge or some facility for crossing the lakes and rivers.

There are abandoned railway rights-of-way which led into these various industrial enterprises. Lots of streams would be accessible if these roads were graded to allow for the construction of trails. If we could lay all these abandoned mining roads, rail lines, lumber roads, and power rights-of-way end-to-end on a map we would have a ready-built trail system in the northern part of the province, at very little cost to the people of Ontario.

Another problem came out at the trail symposium. People from every walk of life want to use trails. A bird watcher and a snowmobile, of course, are not compatible entities. This has to be taken into consideration when you’re designating a trail use. The horseback rider is not too compatible with the fellow who comes through the forest on his trail bike. I recognize that. But despite the difference of opinion and the different attitudes of all of these people I think a trail system could be put together which would accommodate all the various interest groups.

I would suggest one interest group gradually migrates into another. I can readily see that a man of 35 or 40 may be an ardent snowmobiler, and at a later stage in his life might turn into one of the best bird watchers we ever had.

I’ve been on various trails in the Province of Ontario. I think they are a wonderful recreational resource. They bring people into wooded areas that they wouldn’t necessarily get into had the government not provided the facilities. It is very difficult for a person, particularly one from the city and not a bushman, to get into the forest areas. Mostly they congregate around the perimeter. If a trail system were devised to give city dwellers a look at what the world is all about, I think any dollars put out would be well spent.

One jurisdiction in Canada has made great strides: the Province of Quebec. We were in Quebec City investigating on behalf of the all-terrain vehicles committee, and found Quebec has already in place 6,000 miles of snowmobile trails, whereas the Province of Ontario has about 600 miles in place. I think we are deficient in supplying this type of facility.

I see the clock, Mr. Speaker, and I will bow to the clock.

Mr. Speaker: This completes this order of business.

Clerk of the House: The 18th order, House in committee of supply.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.