Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO ENERGY CORPORATION

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, as honourable members will recall, in 1975 the government established the Ontario Energy Corporation as a vehicle for making public investment in energy projects of strategic importance to the province. Since then, the corporation has become involved in three projects: Syncrude, Polar Gas and the use of byproduct heat from the Bruce and Pickering nuclear generating stations for agricultural and aquacultural purposes.

Today I would like to advise the House of recent decisions to restructure and refinance the Ontario Energy Corporation and to outline the corporation’s new mandate. Last December the corporation sold its five per cent interest in Syncrude. With the profits from that sale, the government has decided to redirect the efforts of the corporation and to do so without imposing new burdens on the taxpayer. The new mandate of the corporation will be financed entirely out of the profits earned from its Syncrude investment. At the same time, the government will be reimbursed with interest for all of the moneys put into the corporation over the past four years.

This means that from the $160 million proceeds the corporation received from its Syncrude investment, it will reimburse the government $137 million, including a repayment of $12 million which the government had invested through the corporation in the Polar Gas project. Ontario is continuing its participation in the Polar Gas research project, which is designed to bring supplementary supplies of natural gas from Canada’s northern frontier to southern markets.

The remaining $23 million from the proceeds of the Syncrude investment will be used to finance existing and new energy projects. To achieve this objective, the corporation will be recapitalized at $35 million, made up of the $23 million in cash from the proceeds of the Syncrude sale and the $12 million investment in Polar Gas.

Because Ontario is dependent on other jurisdictions for much of its energy, its long-term energy future is no less certain today than in those difficult months immediately following the oil crisis of 1973. The need to provide assurance of supplies of energy in all its available forms and at reasonable prices continues to be the fundamental goal of Ontario’s energy policy. As noted in the recent speech from the throne, security of energy supply is a key element in maintaining and building the necessary business confidence in the Ontario economy and is a prerequisite of our ability to compete successfully for jobs and new investments.

In this context, the Ontario Energy Corporation can play a valuable role by stimulating the private sector to invest in appropriate energy projects. The changes in the financing and organization of the corporation will allow the Ministry of Energy to become more involved in the development of important and new energy projects without displacing private investment and/or initiatives.

Some weeks ago I announced the reopening of the James Bay lowland area for mineral exploration and, in particular, for the search for additional lignite resources. Where appropriate, the Ontario Energy Corporation will provide assistance in joint ventures with private exploration companies with the object of encouraging a broader exploration effort in the region.

My recent announcement of a joint $6-million program by Ontario Hydro-Onakawana Development Limited to further evaluate the Onakawana lignite deposit should also encourage other companies to investigate and develop the potential for this indigenous energy resource.

Mr. S. Smith: You should be using every cent of that for renewables, and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: While the corporation will continue selected activities in conventional energy sources -- oil, gas and coal -- the corporation will now be directing more of its efforts towards the support of energy from waste projects and the use of byproduct heat from electrical generating stations.

I am pleased with the progress being made at the Bruce and Pickering stations to develop greenhouse operations using the warm water available from the nuclear stations. This greenhouse project is an excellent example of the kind of initiatives that can be undertaken by the public and private sectors together in the commercial development of a previously unused energy source.

Within the next week or so, I expect to be in a position to advise the Legislature of further initiatives by the Ministry of Energy to develop energy from waste. We are at the stage where a limited number of projects -- utilizing waste from garbage, forests or other sources as a supplemental energy source -- would appear to be economically attractive. The Ontario Energy Corporation will have a significant role to play in acting as a catalyst or investor in some of these projects, so that they can be initiated earlier than they might otherwise have been.

The corporation’s five-member board of directors, currently all public servants, will be changed to include two private sector members in order to strengthen the commercial direction of the corporation’s affairs. I shall be announcing the names of the new directors within the next few weeks.

The corporation will operate in future as a financially self-sustaining entity with control being exercised by the government though its share ownership and through the corporation’s board of directors. The Minister of Energy will continue to hold all of the issued common shares of the corporation and the Deputy Minister of Energy will continue as chairman and chief executive officer.

In accordance with government policy, a memorandum of understanding between the corporation and the Minister of Energy is in preparation and will be tabled in the Legislature shortly.

The primary objective of the corporation’s new mandate will be to improve Ontario’s energy supply prospects, rather than to maximize profits. Nevertheless, its participation in any project will have regard to the prospect of obtaining a return on its capital. The corporation will primarily consider equity participation with private companies in individual projects. However, as I said earlier, the mandate of the corporation is to encourage private-sector investment, not to displace it.

The new mandate of the Ontario Energy Corporation will add to the ability of the province to take positive steps in co-operation with the private sector in order to assure Ontario’s future energy supplies.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of privilege please? It is a point of privilege because it would appear that -- undoubtedly inadvertently -- the House has in some way been misinformed, either by this minister or by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). This minister has just said that from the $160 million proceeds the corporation received for its Syncrude investment it will reimburse the government $137 million, including a repayment of $12 million, and the remaining $23 million from the proceeds of the Syncrude investment will go to various other new energy projects. Yet on page nine of the budget statement the Treasurer said, in speaking of his Employment Development Fund: “The amount of the fund has been set at $200 million ... I would stress that the proceeds from the sales of our share of Syncrude and of Ontario Mortgage Corporation mortgages, as well as additional revenues ... are more than adequate to finance the Employment Development Fund this year.”

I guess you and I are waiting for our tax refunds, Mr. Speaker. We have probably thought of five or six places we are going to spend the same money. It is only human to do so, but I would like to know which of the ministers is correct as to where the Syncrude proceeds are really to be used.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Who’s running the store over there?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I believe we are both right because there is sufficient for both.

Mr. Nixon: Do you mean that is the answer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: They are both right, as is always the case.

RABIES CONTROL

Hon. Mr. Auld: Before anybody becomes mad, it is my pleasure to announce that this government, through the Ministry of Natural Resources, will launch a major project to complete developmental work towards a provincial rabies control program. This will extend over a period of three years and cost $2.65 million.

Mr. Kerrio: This is two days In a row we are going to the dogs.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Funds from the Provincial lottery will be used by universities, industry and research institutions, under Ministry of Natural Resources’ co-ordination, to perfect a system of mass-producing a safe, effective rabies vaccine in a bait and to distribute that bait to wildlife.

Rabies, an age-old disease, has been present in Ontario for the past 25 years and has been estimated to cost residents more than $4.6 million annually. Originally brought to this province from the Arctic by foxes, rabies is now carried primarily by foxes and skunks. They, in turn, infect livestock, pets and humans.

Ontario could be called the rabies centre of North America. In fact, we have more cases than any state or province on the continent. About 1,000 to 2,000 animals are diagnosed rabid every year and about 1,000 men, women and children are vaccinated annually after exposure to rabid animals.

As the honourable members know, such victims must undergo a series of 14 injections in order to avoid the risk of a traumatic death. Many persons experience painful reactions to the injections themselves. Since the first epidemics occurred in Ontario in the late 1950s, the government has been keeping track of the problem.

Several methods of controlling rabies have been investigated, but none has as yet proved either successful or economical. Thirteen years ago the World Health Organization suggested potential rabies carriers be vaccinated by feeding them a bait containing a vaccine. A year later, Ontario initiated research into such a project. As a result, an effective vaccine for foxes has been successfully developed in laboratory trials.

The vaccine can be placed in small capsules or granules and mixed in balls of meat. These can then be distributed by aircraft over countryside inhabited by animals which are potential rabies carriers. Although the vaccine is not yet ready for testing in the field, the proposed distribution method has been tested using a marking agent to simulate the vaccine. That marking agent shows up in the teeth of animals that have eaten the bait. Field tests indicate that 74 per cent of the foxes in a rural area can be baited in this way at a cost of $2.35 per square kilometre, which works out to about $6 per square mile.

This research project is midway in its final application to large-scale use in the rabies area of Ontario. The vaccine which has been developed in the lab trials has not been safety tested in various species of wildlife. Before any product is released into the environment we want to make sure it is as safe as possible. Also, methods for mass production of the vaccine and the final bait product must be established with industries experienced in such procedure.

[10:15]

This research project will enable us to close the final gaps in our proposed control program and it will be a major factor in reducing the pain and suffering of wildlife, pets, livestock and humans. I am also confident that the Ontario vaccine bait system, when operable, could be used to control rabies in other parts of the world. For example, Europe is suffering a fox rabies epidemic. Also, in India dog rabies still kills thousands of people a year. We have great hopes that this program will enable Ontario to lead the way in solving our own rabies problems as well as helping others to control theirs.

DISASTER RELIEF ASSISTANCE

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would like to inform the House today of the government of Ontario’s contribution to international relief efforts along the Adriatic coast of Yugoslavia and also in the northern section of the island of St Vincent in the Caribbean.

Mr. Nixon: What about Manitoba?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The government will contribute $20,000 to the earthquake disaster relief fund of the Montenegrin Association of Toronto, matching the funds that have been raised by the Yugoslavian community here in Toronto to date. I understand this donation will be channelled through the Ontario division of the Canadian Red Cross Society toward relief and rehabilitation operations undertaken and to be undertaken by the Red Cross in Yugoslavia following the Easter Sunday earthquakes.

In response to a pledge from the St. Vincent Volcanic Disaster Relief Committee, the government of Ontario will contribute $7,000 to the assistance of the stricken island of St Vincent. This donation of $7,000 will go towards the purchase of four tarpaulins to be used as covers on the reservoirs which are being polluted daily by the volcanic ash. It is my understanding that those tarpaulins are already on their way to St. Vincent or, if not, will be within the next day or so.

It is our hope that these contributions will further assist the valiant emergency efforts in these disaster areas.

FISH TESTING PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, for some weeks I have been planning to report to the members on Ontario’s fish testing and information program prior to the opening of the 1979 fishing season. I think my announcement today is especially timely in light of this week’s events concerning fish in Lake Ontario.

Many members are aware that Ontario has pioneered the testing of sport fish for possible contamination and the recommendation of safe guidelines for the consumption of fish based on our test results. For the past three years, we have provided this information to the public in a convenient, easy-to-read, yet comprehensive form. We have issued monthly bulletins as tests were completed on new lakes and rivers.

I am pleased to announce that copies of the 1979 editions of our bilingual publication, Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish, are being released today and are now available to the public throughout the province. Members will have a set of these three booklets. They will be in their boxes. I am pleased to provide these for the members. In today’s papers, there will be an ad to inform all the residents of Ontario where they can obtain these booklets.

The 1979 editions provide the results from tests of more than 43,000 fish taken from 625 lakes, rivers and parts of the Great Lakes. Testing shows that the majority of sport fish from these waters are free from contamination and may be eaten safely in unrestricted amounts. In fact, in 93.3 per cent or 503 of the waters tested, some or all of the sizes of species of fish were found to be suitable for unrestricted consumption, that is, 21 meals per week.

In only 6.4 per cent or 40 of the waters tested, do we recommend restricted consumption of all species and sizes tested. There are only 0.32 per cent or two of the water bodies tested where we have recommended no consumption of any fish tested. These two locations are on the Wabigoon River below Dryden and nearby Clay Lake. On Clay Lake, a federal-provincial task force is investigating possible remedial measures to counteract the mercury problem.

These facts are documented in our booklets, Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish, which are published in three editions, namely northern Ontario, southern Ontario and one for the Great Lakes. They are available without charge from offices of the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Natural Resources and, in northern Ontario, the Ministry of Northern Affairs. As a new service this year, these booklets will also be available at vacation outlets of LCBO and Brewers’ Retail stores during the spring and summer months.

I would also like to report to the members that the 1978 booklets were extremely well received by the public. More than 130,000 copies were distributed during the past year. Some members have written to me this past year, asking that a specific lake be tested. Where possible, we are attempting to accommodate these requests but, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you as much as anyone, and perhaps more than most, realize that we have a large number of lakes, some 250,000.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do you think he fishes more than the rest of us?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am not sure whether the Speaker fishes more than the rest of us, but if he does, I hope he has a good weekend.

Mr. Speaker: I have a lot of good friends who do.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Bring us some back. It is a big job, Mr. Speaker, to test all of these lakes but we have certainly made a good inroad to that. Fish testing does not come cheaply. Our laboratories can handle about 12,000 fish a year. This means about 200 new lakes and rivers can be covered each year.

While we have tested most of the popular sport fishing areas in Ontario, over the next few years the majority of angling waters in the province will be involved in the testing program.

One other major change this year is that of the wording on the signs posted at lakes and rivers. Previously, the House may recall, the signs read, “Check before you eat.” Some tourist operators complained that this was too negative, particularly for the increasing number of lakes and rivers where test results indicated no problems. That is why, this year, we will be using a new sign that will read, “Ontario’s fish testing program,” posted at the lakes and rivers that have been tested.

I think the honourable members will agree it presents a more balanced picture of the fine quality of fishing available in this province. Ontario’s fish testing program is designed to help it stay that way and may I wish not only you, Mr. Speaker, but all other members who do indulge, good fishing.

SECURITY DEPOSITS

Mr. Eaton: On a point of personal privilege, I would like to draw to the attention of the House what I believe to be a statement of misinformation of fact, and I quote: “The government proposed that landlords continue to pay only six per cent in interest on security deposits which they hold. Under pressure from opposition parties, the interest rate has been increased to nine per cent.” Mr. Speaker, I would like it to be known that I personally moved the motion to increase it to nine per cent, which was supported by all my colleagues on the committee and that that is a misstatement of fact in an article called, “Perspective -- A Newsletter from Stuart Smith, the Leader of the Opposition.”

Mr. S. Smith: It was under pressure, and the member knows what happened in that committee.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DIOXIN IN FISH

Mr. S. Smith: My first question is directed to the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker. Along with many other citizens in Ontario we have waited for his much-promised statement on dioxin. He promised it yesterday; he promised it today and we still don’t have it. May I ask the minister, first of all, where it is and why we don’t have a statement on it? Second, can he explain why it is that in December 1976 an article appeared in the Globe and Mail saying the Ontario ministry was preparing to test for dioxin, and now, two and a half years later, the ministry still appears to be unable to test for those substances?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, the material in the statement on dioxin was covered rather extensively yesterday in questions and by a great number of the media after the question period.

Mr. S. Smith: Hansard will show you promised a statement.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am quite prepared, when we have the results from the fish we sent to Nebraska for testing, to make a further statement at that time. I really feel that much information was given yesterday in the statement, and we will make a report to the House at the time we have the results back from the lab.

With reference to the article in the Globe and Mail -- did the honourable member say two years ago?

Mr. S. Smith: Two and a half years ago.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Two and a half years ago? Then I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the leader of the Liberal Party, I will be glad to get that reference out and, when I have seen it, we will see what that statement says and go from there.

Mr. S. Smith: The question is not whether the minister has read the Globe and Mail of 1976. The question is whether the minister can explain why it is that his ministry is still unable to test for dioxin. He seems able to give us bland reassurances about how everything is fine, even though (a) he does not know where the dioxin is coming from, (b) he cannot test for it here in Ontario and (c) Ontario has had no regular program of testing for dioxin set up with those people who can test for it.

What I want to know, at least to start an answer to this question, is why it is that, even though two and a half years ago they were preparing to test it, his ministry never got around to doing it?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I do not know what that statement contained then. We are able to test for dioxin in our labs now. We do not have an extensive number of results to report. At this time we certainly cannot do the tests -- and I made this very clear yesterday -- for dioxin in the flesh of fish.

If the leader would like, I would be more than pleased to supply a tape from the David Schatzky program this morning, where I thought a very balanced view was presented by Dr. Axelrod of the New York state department; I think he covered many of the questions just raised. Let me expand on that a little --

Mr. Kerrio: The worst polluters in America are in New York state.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It was not Dr. Axelrod who was doing the polluting. He made the point, and I think very well, that the source of contamination by dioxin will be practically impossible to pinpoint. You cannot decide that it came from a specific site. We know where the dioxin material has been used and the potential sources, but certainly one of the points he raised was that dioxin, a byproduct of herbicides, likely could be from many of the fields and therefore find its way into the streams throughout not only New York state but indeed other provinces and states as well.

Mr. Nixon: He also said it was from coal-fired generation.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That was another point he made, that it could be from coal-fired generation. That comes from a report that Dow Chemical has prepared; there are many scientists who might be quite prepared to challenge that assumption.

Mr. Nixon: You agreed with everything he said this morning?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No. I said Dr. Axelrod, I think --

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are running into the same trap that we did yesterday, with the minister not being succinct enough in his responses. Just ignore the interjections --

Mr. Riddell: He’d have to know what he was talking about to be succinct.

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections and perhaps we will get along a little bit more speedily.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, the point I was making, and let me be very succinct, the point source of dioxin is rather difficult to make relative to where it comes from and how it gets to a specific fish. We know a great deal about the use of dioxin. We know a great deal about the levels of dioxin that are found. But to relate the two is not difficult; I think it is impossible. We will have to look at and be concerned about all these sources, and we are.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If the minister does not have the capability for testing for dioxin in fish, how can we be sure that the fish covered by the recommendations in his new booklet on what is safe to eat out of Lake Ontario have been tested for dioxin? Is the smelt run this year safe for consumption, for example?

[10:30]

Hon. Mr. Parrott: There is a great deal of scientific evidence on that point and I will be glad to supply it to the honourable member. I talked about the herald substances yesterday. There is so much that is known. It is true that we have not tested for dioxin in the flesh of fish yet; we will be testing. But that does not mean there is a vacuum of knowledge on the subject. One is not drawing a conclusion there is no health hazard on a vacuum of information and knowledge -- very much to the contrary. I will be very pleased to supply a rather comprehensive response to the question of scientific evidence that leads to that conclusion.

I have had the pleasure and the opportunity to discuss this frequently with officials of the ministry, well informed and very knowledgeable in these scientific approaches. I will be more than prepared to share that with the member opposite.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: Since the ministry does not test fish for dioxin, how can the minister say with authority, as he did this morning, that in 93.3 per cent of the waters tested, some or all sizes and species of fish were found to be suitable for unrestricted consumption?

Second, since the US testing agency clearly has said that pregnant women and children should not eat fish from Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, is the minister saying that warning should be neglected or at least not observed?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: This I think will be very clear. It is scientific in its approach. But the fact I think in simple lay terms is this: In the absence of the things we have tested, then one is quite confident there are infinitesimally small quantities of dioxin, indeed quantities that are unmeasurable.

Just before I came to the House this morning one of the gentlemen -- I think he is in the gallery right now, and if the two members opposite want to visit with him I think they would find it very informative -- was talking not in parts per trillion but quadrillion. That is like saying 000 a thousand times. That is a very watered-down particulate. It is that kind of evidence, which I think is very clear, well known and well documented in all scientific literature, that gives me the privilege of making the statement that there is safety in our fish testing program for the chemical dioxin, notwithstanding the fact a specific test for dioxin has not been made.

[Later (11:25):]

Mr. Gaunt: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Minister of the Environment inadvertently misled the House this morning when he replied to my leader: “We are able to test for dioxin now in our labs. We don’t have an extensive number of results to report.”

One of our research people called MOE to get those results and was told they don’t have any results, because while they’ve got the methodology they’ve never actually done any tests. I wanted to correct that.

[Reverting (10:35):]

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mr. S. Smith: In the absence of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett), I would like to direct a question to the Premier. He undoubtedly knows there is a dispute between the province and Metro regarding who should run public housing in Metro and who should pay. I really do not want to hear about that in the answer to the question. What I want to know is simply this:

Does the Premier know there are at present in Metro Toronto more than 3,000 elderly people facing very large rent increases -- up to 50 per cent, in limited-dividend housing units? Does he know that Metro is prepared to prevent this increase by offering to pay 50 per cent of the cost to convert these units into rent geared to income and the federal government is prepared to pay the other half?

My question is this: Why is the province preventing this agreement from taking place? Why is it standing in the way of the federal money, and in effect allowing the Minister of Housing in a sense to hold these elderly people as hostages to get further agreements of another kind? Why can they not simply accept Metro’s offer to pay 50 per cent and the feds’ offer to pay the other 50, and let the matter be solved, at least for these elderly people?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am always intrigued by the Leader of the Opposition who leads off his question with a statement saying he does not want any answer to the statement he has made. I will not make any answer to the statement he made, even though it was part of the question. I will just casually observe this matter is under discussion, there is a group of people working on it, and I am sure we can find a solution.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since there are 3,000 elderly people, some of whom are facing a 50 per cent rent increase, and since I was trying to avoid the possibility that the Premier might perambulate around the area of the general dispute --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t know how to perambulate.

Mr. S. Smith: -- between the province and Metro with regard to housing, I wanted to focus the Premier’s attention on the one dispute --

Mr. Foulds: Good luck.

Mr. Sweeney: We’re full of optimism.

Mr. S. Smith: -- which has to do with the fact that the province, in order to lever Metro into accepting other terms on other housing deals, is now standing in the way of the federal money coming to Metro, and is doing so by holding the elderly as a kind of hostage in this situation. I want a clear response. If the Premier is not familiar with this, let him simply admit that he doesn’t know about it and have the minister answer it. Let him also call the Metro Chairman and explain why the province won’t let Metro pay 50 per cent and accept the other 50 per cent from Ottawa, when 3,000 people are facing very drastic increases.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In reply to the non-question, which was once again just an observation by the Leader of the Opposition, I reiterate what I said. We’re in the process of discussing this issue and I think we can resolve it.

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the lean and hungry Minister of Industry and Tourism and global product mandating. Does the minister recall that he told this House last November -- as a matter of fact, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) was also involved in the question -- that he was concerned that the Foreign Investment Review Agency had drifted away from its original mandate, which was “neither to close the door entirely nor to open the door entirely”? The minister really did say that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There aren’t doors that size.

Mr. Laughren: Since FIRA tells us that approvals of foreign investment are both screened by the province and virtually always endorsed by Ontario, will the minister confirm that the government of Ontario has opened the door very wide -- wide enough for an elephant to go through -- and that it has approved something over 90 per cent of the applications in this province for foreign takeovers of new business?

Further, would the minister table for this House the criteria on which Ontario’s decisions are made, since he has had over five months to dream up some since the original question was posed to him?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would say to the acting leader of the third party, as I confirmed at that time, I think, we do get consulted by FIRA.

Mr. Kerrio: Great acting.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All the world’s a stage, as the member for Niagara Falls knows.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The situation varies on the applications. For example, if it is what is referred to as a short application, a rather small application, there is little or no opportunity for us to make a submission. On the other hand, there are a vast number of other cases upon which our advice is sought, and on those occasions we do give some advice.

Mr. Mackenzie: You’re just a rubber stamp.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is a fair degree of acceptance of our proposals by FIRA. However, to presume that all of our recommendations are accepted or that 90 per cent of all the cases reflect what Ontario has recommended, I think would be inaccurate. So that the member doesn’t think I have ducked out from under the general thrust of his question, let me say, generally speaking, the recommendations of this province are followed by FIRA.

Mr. Renwick: That is a most unfortunate admission.

Mr. Laughren: The minister is learning well from the Premier.

What I really asked the minister was whether he would table the criteria on which the recommendations to FIRA are made. Presumably, the minister is also aware that the mayor of Windsor and the Windsor-Essex County Development Commission are very concerned about the takeover of the Ambassador Bridge by a Detroit trucking tycoon and that this application is coming before FIRA. Would the minister tell us what his recommendation is to FIRA on the Canadian half of the Ambassador Bridge acquisition, which is after all a very vital link between Windsor and Detroit?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As my friend knows very well, our recommendations to the federal government, because of the terms of the act under which FIRA operates, are a matter of confidential communication between us and the federal government.

Mr. Warner: What a sham!

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, on this point: Does the minister share the concern of the people of Windsor, in particular the Windsor-Essex County Development Commission, that the bridge “should be operated in the public interest of Canada and Canadians”? I quote from a telegram sent to the minister: “The proposed owners, by virtue of their substantial trucking interest and nonresident ownership, might be construed to be a special-interest group which may not operate the bridge in the public interest of Canada and Canadians.”

Does the minister not share our belief and the belief of everyone in the area that no such vital international bridge should, in one sense, cease to be international, nor should it be privately owned and in particular owned by an American businessman?

Mr. Warner: They’ve given away everything else. They might as well give away the bridges.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We haven’t given you away yet.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Which is too bad.

An hon. member: You couldn’t get anyone to take him.

Mr. Warner: The price is too high.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Two cans of Carnation milk.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: When FIRA consults us for our advice, the specific question put to us is whether the proposed change in ownership is compatible with provincial goals and interests. Needless to say, having received this information, we will be reviewing the submission to us.

Mr. Mackenzie: And you will approve it like 95 per cent of the others.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can only repeat what I said earlier. We will ensure that our recommendation reflects our mandate, which is to comment upon the compatibility of that application with our own goals and interests. I can only say that the whole mechanism, devised by the federal government for working this out with the province, puts me under the requirement that I cannot take the easy route, which would be to tell the member in this case and all others what our particular recommendation might be.

The federal government in its judgement has decided that in order to allow effective provincial input into these decisions it must be handled on a confidential basis. I don’t have the luxury under the federal legislation to answer the member’s question. It’s that simple.

Mr. Warner: What a disaster!

Mr. Mackenzie: Ontario for sale.

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Laughren: My next question is of the Minister of Northern Affairs and it concerns the hospital cutbacks. Does the minister understand the effect of the Minister of Health’s (Mr. Timbrell) dictum that only 4.5 beds per thousand will be funded in the current year? Is he aware of the fact that this amounts to an increase of only 3.6 per cent overall for northern hospitals, which will entail the loss of 11 per cent of the hospital beds in the north, and that 453 beds will have to be cut in order to get down to 4.5 beds per thousand in northern Ontario?

Given the fact as well that there are precisely 48 vacancies for physicians in northern Ontario, could the minister explain how such a massive cutback in hospital services will encourage anyone to locate in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as you and the honourable member are aware, health services in the northern part of this province are a very high priority with my ministry.

Mr. McClellan: Not with the Minister of Health though.

Mr. Warner: There’s no proof of that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes. Since being established, we’ve moved in co-operation with the Ministry of Health in setting up a bursary program to encourage doctors and dentists to move into northern Ontario. Just recently, we increased that bursary program from $3,000 to $5,000 a year for the last two years of their studies. We’ve also assisted the Ministry of Health in establishing mobile dental clinics in northern Ontario to satisfy a very urgent need.

Mr. McClellan: Yet there are 48 vacancies.

Mr. Warner: Deny they’re cut back.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In addition to that, we’ve assisted the Ministry of Health in providing funds --

Mr. Speaker: Will you cease all the cross-conversations? We can’t hear the minister.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- so that the mobile hearing clinic, which is known to many of us who live in northern Ontario, can exist and move around throughout northern Ontario.

With regard to the hospital situation, I can assure the honourable member I’ve been in constant contact with my colleague on this situation. I would say to him the situation is not general across the north. There are areas where the restraint program has not had the effect it has had in other areas. It’s very spotty.

Mr. Warner: They’re called cutbacks.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s concerning those areas that we are in discussion with the Ministry of Health. We are looking at the situation as critically as we can. I am hopeful we can come up with some solutions.

[10:45]

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether that means he regards the Minister of Health as being flexible in this regard or not. Is he aware of a statement made by Dr. Arthur Malcolm of Geraldton in which he stated that there is already one doctor preparing to leave for Texas and two others in the Geraldton District Hospital who have indicated that they, too, will leave if the proposed 20-bed cutback in the 45-bed service is implemented over the next three years?

He talked about the service and the problem being spotty, but is he aware that in order to reach the arbitrary level of 4.5 beds, the Chapleau General Hospital, which happens to be in Nickel Belt, will have to cut nine out of 26 beds, a 35 per cent decrease; St. Joe’s in Little Current, 16 out of 42 beds, a 38 per cent decrease; St. Joe’s in Parry Sound, 10 out of 16 beds, a 63 per cent decrease; Mattawa, 15 out of 31 beds, a 49 per cent decrease; Hornepayne, seven out of 13 beds, a 53 per cent loss; Manitouwadge, 15 out of 28 for a 54 per cent loss, and Geraldton as I have already stated?

Mr. Rotenberg: What’s the question?

Mr. Laughren: In view of these massive cutbacks in these small rural hospitals which do, after all, provide very essential services to the large areas that surround those communities, as well as the communities themselves, will the minister not undertake to assure the people in northern Ontario that that arbitrary formula by the Minister of Health will be revised for the sake of northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’m very much aware of the situation to which the member refers.

Mr. Warner: And the minister does nothing.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Again, I point out to him that in certain areas, certainly, there are problems and my ministry is very much aware of them. We are working very closely with the Ministry of Health and the whole question of those problem areas is under review at this time.

Mr. Warner: The minister is a natural disaster.

Mr. T. P. Reid: A supplementary: What input, if any, did the Minister of Northern Affairs have with the Minister of Health in this regard? Can he give us an assurance that the secondary and primary care of the people in northern Ontario will not be affected by these cutbacks?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I think it is evident that the thrust by my ministry in northern Ontario as it relates to health services is very evident indeed. We will certainly continue to make sure that the unique and very special problems that exist in northern Ontario are addressed by the Minister of Health. They will be.

Mr. Wildman: Is the minister aware that his colleague the Minister of Health made a commitment to hospitals with fewer than 50 beds that they would have a minimum increase of 5.3 per cent in their budgets this year and that he has reneged on that commitment in hospital after hospital across the north? Why is he not treating these hospitals as hospitals, so that they can serve a wider area than just the very small community they have? Why can’t he make his colleague live up to his commitments?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of that. That question should properly be addressed to the Minister of Health.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr. Gaunt: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. After 41 years, why is there not a master plan for the Ipperwash Provincial Park to guide its development and operation? Why was exemption MNR8 issued under exemption orders under the Environmental Assessment Act for upgrading facilities, when in actual fact it was used to build a road, a clear violation of the exemption order?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have first-hand knowledge of that but I will find out about it and give the answer to the member as soon as I can.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary: Can the minister explain why it is that in spite of the recommendation in the 1975 Donaldson report on Ipperwash Provincial Park not to permit development on the Ipperwash park meadow, a new access road was built that has ruined the unique meadow, which contains rare plants otherwise unknown in Ontario and now considered to be endangered species, especially since the park staff were apparently fully informed of the significance of the plant species affected?

Mr. Peterson: It was poison ivy.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I will find out about that, too, Mr. Speaker.

FLOOD DAMAGE

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs with regard to the very serious flooding situation in the Goulais River valley in Algoma over the last few days. Could the minister give assurance to the House that his ministry, in conjunction with other ministries of the government, will give assistance to the victims of the flooding from Searchmont through Goulais River to Lake Superior, which is the worst flooding in that area in memory?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Natural Resources is the lead ministry when it comes to the question of fires and floods. My ministry has been monitoring the situation on an hourly basis. Before coming to the Legislature I learned the water level at Searchmont had dropped 18 inches overnight. The Minister of Natural Resources might have some more information in answer to the question the member asked.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, may I redirect? I understand the flooding is dropping in Searchmont but it’s rising in Goulais River now.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, the information I have from yesterday -- just to give a little history -- is that Natural Resources staff were there as were the Ontario Provincial Police. There were six houses outside of Searchmont flooded and there were about 30 people affected. Those 30 people have been moved to Sault Ste. Marie. We thought there might be further evacuations necessary yesterday, but that apparently hasn’t been the case.

It wasn’t possible, I am informed, to contain the flood with sandbags or that kind of thing. As the Minister of Northern Affairs said, the flood is receding and at the moment our own staff and the OPP are keeping a watching brief and we do have a helicopter at the site.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware the flood crest has moved down river from Searchmont to the community of Goulais River and overnight the OPP and his ministry advised people in the community of Goulais River -- on both sides of the river -- to move to higher ground, to vacate their homes? If that is the case, can he assure us there will be assistance for these flood victims if such an evacuation remains necessary? Finally, can his ministry give us some commitment that agreements will be made with the federal government for the flood-plain mapping in the area and the engineering studies necessary to be carried out for a long-term flood control and erosion control program on the Goulais River, since I have been in contact with his ministry and the Ministry of Northern Affairs for the last two years on this problem?

Hon. Mr. Auld: As far as the reference to downstream is concerned, I’m sorry I missed mentioning that from the notes I have here. We will be looking into this to see whether there is some way to prevent this in the future. I don’t have enough information at the moment to really comment further than that.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Can the minister give a brief report on the flooding in Field and Nipissing, and it seems to me there are three or four other northern municipalities troubled this way? Can he assure the House there is going to be a better system for assisting those communities than the dollar-for-dollar routine that has been the basic formula for southern Ontario municipalities? The minister no doubt recalls that in, I believe, the New Liskeard and Sudbury --

Mr. Havrot: Cobalt.

Mr. Nixon: -- natural disasters, the communities were supported well beyond the dollar-for-dollar base.

Hon. Mr. Auld: As far as Field is concerned, and talking about the floods, the municipal people themselves have been looking after most of the work there. Again, we are on site. We have been requested to provide and we have provided some fire pumps to the Abitibi plant there to ensure they won’t have problems in their powerhouse.

We haven’t been called for assistance by the municipality, but as I said, we are there. We have boats and equipment ready if they are needed. I’m informed that about 25 families have left Field for the time being. As far as additional assistance is concerned, I think that question should go to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) who operates the disaster relief program.

PROVINCIAL SCHOOLS DISPUTE

Hon. Mr. McCague: The member for Windsor-Sandwich asked a question last week which I think should more properly be directed to the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) and you might allow him to do that in a few moments, Mr. Speaker.

GRIEVANCE ARBITRATION

Hon. Ms. McCague: The member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) asked a question in the House on April 12 concerning the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board. The board is made up of a chairman, one or more vice-chairmen and an equal number of members representing the employees and the employers. Appointments are made for a two-year term by the Lieutenant Governor in council after requesting and considering the views of each bargaining agent. In my view we have been fortunate in securing the services of highly qualified people for this very important task.

While the member may personally disagree with the decisions of the board from time to time, I would remind him the key to the effectiveness of the board is that it operates as an independent tribunal without outside interference.

FLOOD DAMAGE

Mr. Watson: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, which is not unrelated to that last series of questions regarding flooding. In Dover township they are in the process of getting things repaired. I know there was a delegation from Dover township to see the minister yesterday regarding supplementary funding. Could he advise the House as to whether or not he is going to consider supplementary funding for the rebuilding of roads washed out during the floods in Dover township?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I did meet with the reeve and the engineer and a delegation of councillors from Dover, along with my colleague. They gave me a report on the added expenditures they anticipate this year because of the floods and the washouts of the road. They also anticipate major expenditures in drainage cleanouts because of the silts.

We have not finally established the distribution of funds under the municipal road program for the supplementary allocations, but I can assure the honourable member that there will be some assistance for Dover township over and above the normal allocations. I will try to meet the provincial share of the work that has to be done this year to get those roads back in reasonable condition.

REVIEW OF BILL 100

Mr. Conway: My question is to the Minister of Education. In view of the fact that last year Renfrew county experienced one of the most protracted secondary school disputes in this province, and in view of the fact that shortly after that the Minister of Education, in a letter to me, indicated that her ministry would be initiating an internal review of Bill 100 -- and in the course of that letter she indicated that when ready to proceed with that review those groups which are to be directly involved will be notified -- can she indicate to this House at this time the exact nature and mandate of that review which was promised at least four months ago?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The internal review is proceeding. It is not entirely completed as yet. When the information developed as a result of that review is available to me, then we must make the decision about the way in which we proceed from that stage forward. If we have to proceed from that stage forward, it seems to me appropriate that all of those with direct concern about the function and the role of Bill 100 should be involved in the consultation and discussion about it.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Can the minister itemize for this House those groups which are to be directly involved, since surely some groups have been notified of this review? In particular, can she indicate what aspects of this major legislation are being reviewed, and can she indicate when we in this House can expect to hear back from her when the review is to be completed and if, indeed, there are to be legislative amendments presented to members in this House in the not too distant future?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It would seem to me to be entirely logical to examine the effect of Bill 100 in the light of the experience since its introduction. That is precisely what the internal review is attempting to do right at the moment; to look at the record of relationships between boards and federations of teachers before Bill 100 and after Bill 100 and to try to make a reasonable analysis of the effect of the legislation.

[11:00]

If the legislation appears to have been reasonably effective, then the degree of review will be necessarily limited. If there are major problems pointed up by the review of the experience, it would seem to me a review of the total piece of legislation is necessary. At this point in time, it is impossible to tell the honourable member exactly what the scope of the final review will be and therefore, to predict the length of time it will take.

Mr. Bounsall: Has the review committee already recommended that principals and vice principals be fully covered and active participants in the bargaining unit?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have just finished saying the internal review is related specifically to the experience which has occurred as a result of the introduction of Bill 100. It is an analytic process covering all aspects of the review.

Mr. Lawlor: Who does it involve?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: At this point in time? It is an internal body. It is being done within the ministry with the assistance, the expert advice and information available from the Education Relations Commission.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The recent Ontario Supreme Court ruling was that conflicts of interest exist in very broad terms when a school board trustee is co-domiciled with an employee of the board. Because this disqualifies an estimated 200 school board trustees around the province from voting on a wide range of issues, producing the prospects of mass resignations, court cases, or by- elections and a general disruption of the public school administration, does the minister intend to take immediate legislative action to remedy or at least to preclude these unfortunate prospects?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’ll answer the question this way: First of all, I think there has been a review of the conflict of interest legislation. There are always numerous concerns raised by various municipalities and school boards about the general operation of the legislation and a committee has already made a report. There have been discussions going on with the provincial-municipal liaison committee. Of course, all these things will be looked at and new things that come along will be looked at, but I must say I have dealt with this problem in my former ministry, Education.

I must say I agree with the judge’s decision. I do not think there is a problem. I think this is the very kind of thing the conflict of interest legislation was intended to get at and it doesn’t preclude these trustees or any others, from sitting on a school board. All it says is that they declare an interest and don’t take part in certain matters which have a direct pecuniary effect on their family. I think that’s right.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: It’s unfortunate this includes sitting on committees, as I understand it in the initial ruling, and not just voting on matters. I am wondering if the recommendations brought forward might include an exception to do with bargaining units, in that it seems to me in the present act exceptions exist to protect board members who have relatives who are on boards of directors of corporations. It is a collective entity I might say, that deals with the board. I would hope for an amendment. My question is: Would the minister consider bringing an amendment forward to us that would give similar protection to board members with relatives who are members of bargaining units, collective entities and not individuals?

Mr. Ashe: Greatest conflict of them all.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What’s the difference.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m not sure I follow exactly what my friend is stating, but I must say the public press concentrates on this kind of a conflict. If the member checks the records of school boards, he’ll find many trustees declaring a conflict and not voting on various purchase items and so forth because they feel they are in some way connected through some relationship with the company from which that product is being bought. I think that that’s right and good. Sometimes it goes to extremes that perhaps seem a little odd to people, but in order that the law be seen to be observed and observed well, I think that’s necessary.

I really feel in this particular case the conflict of interest legislation was very specific. If one has a spouse, particularly, who could benefit from the actions of the bargaining committee, one shouldn’t take part in that committee and should declare a conflict. I think that’s a very simple thing and it is accepted by most people.

ASSISTANCE TO SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. McCaffrey: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism arising out of his statement made to the Legislature yesterday on the Ontario development corporation’s assistance to small business. As has been the pattern, the minister provided the opposition critics with his statement, and as a courtesy provided his back-bench colleagues with the same statement; I thank him for that.

Throughout the statement reference is made to an increased emphasis in getting the traditional lending institutions to assist in loans to small business. Could I ask the minister a two-part question: To date, what is the procedure in his ministry to see that the traditional lending institutions do play their part in assisting Ontario’s small business; and what will the increased emphasis entail?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Traditionally we have not played an aggressive role in seeking out, for example, private money by way of guarantees for our traditional ODC clients. This is for the very good reason that it had been the policy there should be a cap on the amount of guarantees -- that is the contingent liabilities -- that should appear in the Treasurer’s consolidated revenue statement.

That has changed in that the cap has now been removed. This will allow us to play an aggressive role in terms of speaking to our traditional clients and trying to ascertain from them precisely why they are having difficulty getting assistance from the private lending institutions. We then take them to the institutions, meet with the institutions and put together a package including government support if necessary in terms of guarantees, interest subsidies, whatever.

Such help is necessary to lever out of the private institutions approval that hasn’t been forthcoming so far. This has involved us meeting with the banks, the trust companies and so on to get their co-operation in working with us -- to get, quite frankly, more of a willingness from them to make some of the loans which traditionally they have not made. What we have ascertained out of all this is that bank managers in many of the smaller municipalities in this province often are hesitant to get into some of these things. It firstly relates to the way head office treats their profit and loss statement in terms of bank managers and their loss ratio.

In an attempt to overcome this, we have also looked at the reasons for the banks having a policy of being very conservative. I have made it quite clear I think it is overly conservative in too many circumstances. I don’t think it’s enough to approach the banks to get a commitment from them to agree not to be quite so conservative in their lending practice. Rather we have approached them and tried to identify the particular reasons. For example, where we find a loan is refused because there’s not enough equity put in by the applicant, then perhaps the ODCs will now consider an upfront grant to increase the equity portion of the loan.

Secondly, one of the reasons banks refuse the loan is that they feel the cost of carrying the loan they might be prepared to give is too high. If this is the case, ODC might consider an interest subsidy to subsidize a loan at prime plus one or two or three, by as much as four or five points to make the carrying costs more reasonable.

So, to sum it all up, what we are trying to do is to develop the capability to provide the financial assistance necessary to overcome the reluctance of the bank, identify precisely the reasons why --

Mr. Speaker: I think the honourable minister has summed it up very well.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: One moment -- why the borrower is unable to get that private money and then solve that problem.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in view of the fact we now have the ODCs, we now have the small business development corporations or will have, and we also have the Employment Development Fund, plus federal agencies, all interested in providing assistance to the small business community, has the minister any kind of mechanism for co-ordinating assistance to the small business community when they apply for assistance through one of those agencies?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. Some of the people who have traditionally gone to the Federal Business Development Bank for example, are people who could just as easily have come to the Ontario Development Corporation. Likewise, we feel the ODC has been doing some business that perhaps could easily have gone to the FBDB. We are trying to shift our programs to operate only in those areas where there are not equivalent and satisfactory programs already in place by the federal government.

The honourable member will recall that, in terms of the Employment Development Fund money and in terms of the statement I made yesterday, we made very clear in both cases that our attempt was to avoid overlap and duplication. Our field officers are being brought in so that we can review the whole process with them and change our ways operating in the field to sort that out.

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Natural Resources: Has he received a telegram from some concerned citizens in Atikokan in regard to the proposed test drilling by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, has he responded to that telegram and, if so, what has he responded?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, actually I think it was a letter, along with a petition, I received yesterday, and I have not yet responded to it. I have also received a Telex from the reeve, Mr. Pierce, in connection with this petition, and a Telex from Mr. Frech of the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Whiteshell establishment. I have also not yet responded to either of those.

It would appear that this petition was circulated, stating approximately that “the undersigned request full public hearings on all aspects of nuclear waste management, including test drilling, and that a plebiscite be held before test drilling begins, and that the undersigned request the council of the township of Atikokan to reconsider its decision of March 6, to permit Atomic Energy of Canada to carry out test drilling in the Atikokan area.”

The Telex from Mr. Frech indicates that on Tuesday, April 24, the Atikokan township council held its regular meeting. A group of 40 people appeared as a delegation with that petition. Two motions were considered by the council. The first one was that the council reconsider its decision of March 6, 1979, and withdraw its permission from AECL to conduct test drilling in the Atikokan area; that was defeated by the council. The second one was that the council request the governments of Canada and Ontario to undertake public hearings on the whole question of nuclear waste management, including test drilling, and that a plebiscite be held before test drilling begins; that, too, was defeated by the council. Which is in effect what Reeve Pierce’s Telex also said.

As I think the honourable members of the House are aware, a public meeting was held by the AECL staff on March 6 in Atikokan, and I am told that approximately 40 people attended. There was some question as to how well this had been publicized, but I understand it was publicized on cable television in Atikokan for four or five days preceding the meeting and in the Thunder Bay paper, which has daily circulation in Atikokan.

As far as my own position is concerned, we have had a request now from AECL to undertake test drilling. We have circulated this request to a number of other provincial ministries for their comments. I have not received them all back yet; when I do, then I will have to make some decision.

It is interesting -- and, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I thought I might mention this, although it is not in direct answer to the honourable member’s question -- that there have been a number of open discussions in Atikokan, starting back on May 29, 1978, discussing the whole program. Last July the council there passed a resolution directing the reeve to write to the Honourable Mr. Gillespie, the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, asking that he direct AECL to undertake test drilling. That was done. I noticed that --

[11:15]

Mr. Speaker: The question was, has the minister received those communications and has he answered?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have. I just want to say that the reeve was returned unopposed in the last election.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, with great foolishness I ask a supplementary: Because there seems to be some question about the availability of information to the public for whatever reasons, rightly or wrongly, and since AEGL seems to be prepared to go back and have an open, public hearing on the test drilling, and perhaps to more fully explain; and because of the events of Harrisburg which obviously have caused concern in places other than Atikokan but particularly there, would the minister be prepared to make a request to AECL and the Atikokan council that in fact another open meeting in a suitable spot in Atikokan be held to once again go through the program and explain what they are doing, for the benefit of the citizens of Atikokan?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would not be surprised if that is what AECL proposed to do. I propose to look into that very action. If I can say, on a slightly lighter note on what is an important matter, it will be great for the tourist business in Atikokan, there will be people there from all over.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Does the minister not agree that he is faced with a dilemma as AECL and the federal-Ontario agreement stipulate quite clearly that AECL will not proceed with any part of its waste management program unless there is community approval, and even if the council has approved, when there are 1,700 residents of an area objecting as strongly as these that does not indicate total community approval?

Hon. Mr. Add: Mr. Speaker, I do agree that there is a dilemma. Certainly it is true that the feds will not proceed without provincial approval.

AIR POLLUTION

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment resulting from the unacceptably high air pollution index in Hamilton over the last week. Can the minister explain to me the basis on which his officials have expressed publicly their confidence that local polluters are complying with the voluntary cutback provision after the index reaches 32, when in fact the ministry does not monitor voluntary cutbacks in the city of Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That is very difficult for me to do this morning without consulting with the officials. I should be able to do so over the weekend and get a more definite answer for the member on Monday.

Mr. M. N. Davison: While the minister is doing that, I wonder if he would consider the advisability of monitoring the voluntary cutbacks and releasing to the public the facts that are gained during the voluntary cutback periods, so that my constituents and other residents of Hamilton would be able to know which polluters are complying with the voluntary cutbacks and which polluters are continuing with an unabated program of degradation of the environment on those days?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think it is reasonable to ask that we have some understanding of whether the voluntary program is working. I would agree with the member that we should have that information. I think it is reasonable to expect that might be done; that rather than making a check with every industry on every occasion, we do some sampling. If the honourable member will accept that as a valid approach we are prepared to do that.

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH CENTRES

Mr. Sweeney: A question of the Minister of Education, Mr Speaker: Is the minister aware that the educational program at 29 children’s mental health centres in the province, operated in conjunction with over 60 school boards, is endangered because of considerations by her ministry officials to eliminate funding for transportation to those centres?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware some concern has been expressed but I am not aware the extent of the concern is quite as dramatic as the honourable member has suggested.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Is the minister aware of the fact that both the school boards and the mental health centres have been in touch with her ministry officials and have been put off and put off and are now told it might be another couple of months before a decision is made, and they can’t plan?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware there has been contact, but I don’t believe it’s going to take that long for the situation to be resolved.

Mr. Sweeney: What is the basis for that kind of a decision? Why would the minister even think of doing that?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it seemed to me the revisions in the area of funding of transportation for school boards were a move in the direction of greater equitability. Specific problems have arisen as a result of that move to provide greater equitability.

Mr. McClellan: Bafflegab, bafflegab. What a lot of rubbish. Can you answer any question straight?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: In attempting to resolve those problems, I think we have to make sure we don’t destroy the equitability status --

Mr. Laughren: You don’t even understand the restraint program.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- while attempting to ensure there is no impediment to the appropriate transportation of young people in those centres.

BUILDING MATERIAL PRICES

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I see him just coming back in.

Since my question a week ago today to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett), has the minister had a chance to examine the six-month increase of 38 per cent in the price of copper tubing in Canada? Would he explain why $1 buys 1.3 inches of copper tubing in Ontario, compared to 21.5 inches in the United States?

Why is tubing so much more expensive here than in the United States when we produce our own copper and our own tubing? Has he brought this to the attention of the national commission on inflation or asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to look into it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is metric.

Mr. Swart: Has the minister himself taken any action in this matter?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would keep those tubes if I were you. You will be able to replace your aorta with them.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It’s late on Friday. I’ll take it as notice.

I do wish to draw the attention of the honourable member to a remark he made about me on Tuesday last. I’m sure he didn’t mean it but he accused me of stealing coffee he had sent over to me.

Mr. Swart: No, I said the previous minister.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, you didn’t.

Mr. Swart: Check Hansard.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I give him the benefit of the doubt. It was not to me he said it.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I said the previous minister.

Mr. Speaker: As I recall, he said you failed to return it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That’s right. I never received it, Mr. Speaker. I’d like an apology.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister carefully check the documents I sent over to him? Will he notice that the prices I have mentioned -- the differential in prices -- are taken in Canada from Allpriser, the trade publication on copper tubing, and from the same thing in the United States?

Is he aware the profits of Anaconda have increased by something like 80 per cent to 90 per cent in the last year? Can’t he see the apologizing he has been doing for the various increases in prices in covering up the profiteering at the expense of the consumer and that it simply encourages more ripoffs? I’ll send them over to him.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I don’t really know what the member is talking about. I haven’t covered up or apologized. I will take the question as notice. I will get the answers back to the honourable member.

Does he want to count the pages to make sure that when I give them back to him, it’s me giving them back to him?

One final remark: I will go on record that I think it is fundamental in this province there be a lot more profits in the copper industry. When there are, hopefully it might produce a settlement at International Nickel.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to briefly summarize a few of my personal reactions to the honourable Treasurer’s (Mr. F. S. Miller) first budget. I particularly asked to have this opportunity because I wanted my thoughts and opinions on the record as to the need to work towards a balanced budget for the financial affairs of the government of this province.

Before I was elected, or even had the remotest thoughts of ever being a candidate, I heartily endorsed the stated objectives of the then Treasurer of this province to bring in a balanced budget. When the timetable for doing so was extended, I was more than a little disappointed, although I tried to understand and appreciate the reasons for such a move. I had an uneasy feeling the Treasurer, in his first budget, might announce an even further delay in obtaining such an important objective. To my considerable relief and delight he reaffirmed the goal of a balanced budget and indicated the steps he plans to take to reach this goal.

As a fledgling member, and one who comes from the business community, I am very concerned when I think of the high interest payments being expended daily, funds that could much better be used for important and necessary services related to social development. I am also exasperated when I think of the financial state of the federal government and their apparent lack of concern for financial stability and responsibility. While this province is in excellent financial condition compared with most other provinces, and certainly compared with the federal government, I don’t think that’s good enough.

Curtailment of government spending in a period of financial constraints is not a popular move politically. If services cannot be expanded civil servants are not replaced and progressive legislation is delayed. However, in some cases that may be the price we have to pay for over-indulgence in earlier years. The sooner everyone accepts that fact the better off we’ll be.

If financial restraint forces this government and its ministries to re-examine their priorities, then I say that while the exercise may be painful, it can only be described as a healthy one.

The Treasurer’s budget was presented under the most difficult conditions. I say without reservation and without partisanship that I feel he’s done a masterful job in balancing the problems of the mechanisms of restraint while stimulating the economy and providing the opportunities for job creation and economic development.

In my view, one of the most significant elements of the 1979 budget is the formal presentation of the government’s industrial incentive program through the establishment of the Employment Development Fund. As one of the northern representatives to this Legislature, I appreciate the important effect this program will have on the economic wellbeing of this province.

[11:30]

Three quarters of all manufacturing in northwestern Ontario involves the processing of pulp and paper products. Twenty-five per cent of the labour force in the northeast is involved in this industry, and certainly a significant number of workers in eastern Ontario are employed in pulp and paper mills. Almost 70,000 Ontarians are working directly or indirectly in this fifth largest of all our manufacturing industries. Our third largest exporter and our sixth largest employer is pulp and paper manufacturing.

I’m sure we’ve all heard these figures before. Insight into the importance of pulp and paper manufacturing cannot be gained through figures alone. One has to understand its importance as measured through this industry’s local impact. Such communities as Smooth Rock Falls, Dryden, Sturgeon Falls, Terrace Bay, Red Rock and Kapuskasing are almost entirely dependent on the activities of pulp and paper mills. They are the life blood of these centres.

In this respect, I trust the government and the Reed paper company can resolve the current problems so Dryden will not become a ghost town. These problems involve modernization in concert with environmental controls.

It just isn’t our balance of payments that must concern us. We must recognize the need to reduce vulnerability of pulp-and-paper-dependent communities. At the present time, this vulnerability stems in large part from the fact the machinery used in Ontario’s pulp and paper mills is antiquated. We are in a period when, because of a depreciated dollar and improved market conditions, some Ontario industry is becoming more competitive. Pulp and paper companies must take advantage of an opportunity to install both more modem and environmentally sound equipment.

However, the industry still operates under higher wood, labour and transportation costs. The investment capital required to modernize Ontario plants cannot be entirely generated by the industry itself. The profits from the industry have been erratic, to say the least, and the past few years have not been good enough to allow consistent reinvestment. Consequently, massive spending is required to restore permanent competitiveness in pulp and paper manufacturing. If the industry were to pass on all its costs of modernization to consumers, the competitive position, of course, would be threatened.

There are extenuating circumstances which warrant the encouragement through government programs of investment in updated pulp and paper manufacturing equipment. However, these circumstances are not the same for all industries, and I would trust this government has not set a precedent of assisting all businesses and that spending of this sort is vigorously controlled.

While I don’t see a program of encouraging industrial investment as a simple handout, I do believe certain investments will be effective in creating a large, permanent revenue base for government, as well as long term jobs for Ontario residents. Given the wrong conditions, however, other investments may not be so effective. Guarantees of economic developments must accompany any projects the government establishes. While endorsing the concept of supporting private enterprise, I urge the government’s strictest use of caution in supplying these incentives. I believe the current negotiations with Reed paper company indicate that is being done.

Tourism is also an area of key importance for a government pursuing the goal of a balanced budget. As Canada’s largest single employer and sixth largest source of foreign exchange, it deserves the sort of special attention the Progressive Conservative government has given it in our 1979 budget. Tourism is a largely Canadian-owned industry, offering tremendous opportunity for regional development. It has the advantage of being labour as well as capital intensive. In fact, in 1976 tourism generated 35,000 jobs and $800 million in northern Ontario alone. Provincially, tourism represented 10.8 per cent of our gross provincial product and 11 per cent of total employment.

Despite the revenue and number of jobs generated by tourism in this province, we in Ontario are not taking full advantage of our tourism potential. The federal sector task force on the tourism industry reports a steady erosion of the Canadian tourism industry’s competitive position over the past 10 years. That trend has been particularly pronounced since 1974. The problem is that while Canadians are increasing their travel abroad, particularly to the United States, at a rate far exceeding the growth of their domestic travel, Americans are coming to Canada in steadily decreasing numbers.

It is easy to see this tourism pattern has a negative effect on Canada’s balance of trade. Stimulation of the tourism industry will bring foreign dollars directly into Ontario, but not at the price of relinquishing ownership of our industry or resources. The federal task force has urged the provinces to pay attention to the tourist industry’s special problems and potential. It is just the kind of sensitivity that is reflected in our government’s 1979 budget.

One of the greatest problems faced by our hospitality business is the heavy burden of what might be seen as a sort of double taxation, property taxes augmented by a retail sales tax for the use of hotel rooms. This government’s initiative in lifting the retail sales tax for transient accommodation has been so successful that it has been extended from December 31, 1979 to March 31, 1981.

In order to compete with facilities south of the border and in other provinces, Ontario hospitality operators must be able to offer comparable comfort and services. I am pleased to see that our government has also addressed the importance of renovation and expansion of facilities through tax exemptions in the purchase of furniture and kitchen equipment. This sort of incentive will, I think, strongly encourage existing entrepreneurs to renovate and attract new investments.

One of the key components of a healthy tourist trade, particularly for areas like northern Ontario, is geographic accessibility. Transportation has improved vastly with the introduction of passing lanes in the north. Thankfully, the days are gone when we had to follow a truck’s tail lights all the way from Sault Ste. Marie to Sudbury. Northern roads have improved indeed, and will continue to improve.

The proposed expenditure in the northern roads program for 1979-80 is $51 million for capital and construction costs. As much as we look forward to continued upgrading and expansion of our transportation network, the money has to come from somewhere. A substantial part of the funding comes from general revenue. However, it seems fair to ask that a large part be generated by more direct taxation, the gasoline tax. The gasoline and motor vehicle fuel tax rates have not risen since 1972, but highway construction costs have. Therefore, an 8.7 per cent increase in gasoline tax strikes me as reasonable. It will earn the province an estimated $607 million to offset the high costs of both building and maintaining modern highways.

As a representative of a northern Ontario riding, I am quite sure gas taxes have a real effect on my constituents, who must travel greater distances than southern Ontarians. This government, as evidenced by special licensing fees for motor vehicles, has recognized that northerners represent a special case.

Another tax which also strikes close to home is the extension of the seven per cent sales tax to the telecommunications industry. As a member of that industry, I am placed in a position of explaining that tax to our cable subscribers in Sault Ste. Marie. This task was made less difficult by the fact that I do feel extending the sales tax to telecommunications was inevitable. Cable TV is already taxed in a number of other provinces. The cost to the average cable TV subscriber will be 50 cents a month -- less than that in Sault Ste. Marie -- and the return to the province will be $30 million.

I am especially pleased to see that the Ontario succession duties and gift taxes were finally eliminated as a revenue source once and for all. Succession duties, to my mind, have a discriminatory effect against private business as well as investment.

Mr. Grande: Stay on the cable for a little while.

Mr. Ramsay: Farms and family businesses in particular up until now were often forced into awkward situations on the death of senior members. Frequently, property and other capital assets had to be sold in order to meet the duties imposed. This unnecessary disposal of long-term personal investments was quite unreasonable. It would be ridiculous for this government, and indeed this budget, to encourage Ontario residents to invest their capital in this province and to build up their assets if we were to continue levying a tax which greatly increases the risk of business collapse, loss of jobs and possible foreign acquisition of Ontario capital.

I think the government has long known that revenues raised through succession can never be converted to incentive mechanisms as effective as private investment is in creating new employment opportunities. Also, I think this government realizes that a reasonable revenue contribution for the support of government services is obtained through taxes on earned income resulting from private investments. The question, put most simply, is why give up or inhibit a permanent source of our tax revenue for the sake of a short-lived gain in government income?

I am not suggesting that direct incentives to industry or even small business will not greatly enhance Ontario’s investment climate. They will, and they are in limited cases necessary. However, favourable changes within our tax structure will accomplish more in reversing the recent increasing trends of Canadians investing their income in foreign countries. Accordingly, I wholeheartedly support the Treasurer’s elimination of these two taxes.

Turning briefly to health care, I cannot say I was shocked to see a modest increase in health revenues. The costs of maintaining high quality health care have in the past escalated far more rapidly than premium revenues. In 1972-73, for instance, premium payments accounted for 32 per cent of total health revenue. Last year, premiums provided only 29 per cent of total revenue, while the remaining 71 per cent of health expenditures came out of general revenue.

In contrast to private insurance, our health premiums cover only a fraction of the full cost of services. However, I still feel that the premium system provides a visible financial link between individuals and the health-care system, even though in many cases premiums are paid by one’s employer as part of a fringe benefit package. I think this link should be maintained.

The premium rate increase of $1 per month for single people and $2 per family is a logical means to re-establish a realistic premium-contribution to overall health costs. The budget’s announced increase will amount to only a 5.3 per cent rise in premium costs, whereas I understand the cost of insured services is estimated to rise by 5.5 per cent.

I know there are those who feel that all health-care costs should be covered by personal income taxes. I do not know how personal income tax financing would affect user attitudes towards health-care services. However, I do feel very strongly that this government should encourage responsible use of all social services, including health. I believe this can be achieved through a premium system which doesn’t interfere with health care accessibility by all Ontario residents.

It has been pointed out that personal income tax financing of the health-care system would require a 30 per cent rate increase in the Ontario income tax. A shift such as this would have an enormous impact. Not only would our tax system be disrupted, but the economy generally might well suffer. As the 1979 budget indicates, this is an era when job creation and individual incentives in the area of creating employment are two very important government priorities. Loading up the personal income tax base, as the budget phrases it, would reduce the government’s flexibility in using the tax system to meet other policy objectives.

In addition to this and by way of concluding my remarks, I think it’s worthwhile pointing out that this year’s budget once again has not altered the rate of personal income tax. Canadians and Ontarians are already experiencing difficulties with high taxes because of these inflationary times. Money left in the hands of residents in this province, used wisely and efficiently, will ultimately lead to increases in private enterprise investments.

We currently enjoy the second lowest income tax rate in Canada, that is 44 per cent of the basic federal income tax. I am firmly convinced that if we are to get our national and provincial economies on their feet again successfully, these rates must be held at the lowest level possible.

[11:45]

While this budget may not be characterized by dramatic changes and flamboyant new programs, it does reflect our party’s firm commitment to a program of economic stimulation combined with spending restraint. Just as mammoth deficits spell trouble in the private sector, huge government deficits mean higher interest payments and future economic burdens. While government has pared down growth in spending, low revenue growth performance has been experienced over the past couple of years.

Indexing personal income tax, reduced corporate profits and also certain retail sales tax reductions as investment incentives, have contributed to this slow growth. While we must eliminate our deficit, I do understand that we must be careful not to sacrifice our economic competitiveness. A deficit reduction of $184 million seems to meet this required balance, and therefore may I take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to the Treasurer for his first budget, and express my confidence in his ability to guide this government during a difficult and challenging period in our provincial economy.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me to rise on this occasion to discuss the 1979 budget which was presented by the Treasurer. I would like to point out in the beginning that I think our critic, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), covered it very well as far as the overall criticism of the budget was concerned; I think his response expressed the view of our caucus and I would like to congratulate him for that. I think some constructive industrial strategy was presented and I think there were some good alternatives that the government may utilize.

Consequently, I would like to zero in on a few issues that I feel would be beneficial, and express some concerns on behalf of my particular area, Haldimand-Norfolk, which I think can also apply to other areas in Ontario.

I feel very strongly that my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk is in a changing position. We are in a trend that will provide job opportunities perhaps more readily than anywhere else in Ontario at the present time. We have the industrial park or the Stelco steel mill coming on stream in 1980, we have the Texaco oil refinery producing oil now, and the Hydro generating station at Nanticoke is working at perhaps 75 per cent of its capacity. I think it is a particular area which can stimulate the economy and hopefully can achieve a balanced budget, as the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has indicated.

I would just like to read into the record the comments of our critic during the Liberal Party’s formal response to the new provincial budget. Our financial critic referred to the government’s latest commitment to balance the budget by 1984 as a sham. He pointed out that if the government’s own projections are correct and if the current rate of decline in the deficit, 2.2 per cent continues, it will take 43 years before revenues match expenditures.

In addition, this year’s forecast doesn’t even include an estimate of revenue lost from uptake of the proposed small business development program. In addition, given our justifiable lack of faith in this government’s forecast, the question now becomes not when will the budget be balanced but when will the trend for ever larger deficits be reversed. That’s my real concern. As I watch our area developing basically from a rural municipality to a combination of industry and rural agriculture, I think it’s important that we maintain that.

I think there is an area that can provide many job opportunities. There is a trend at the present time for young people to get back to the farm, because they realize after attending universities and colleges that there is a good future in agriculture. They realize that agricultural products can be utilized in bartering for export trade and I would like to indicate that Haldimand-Norfolk is in a heat- unit area which makes it very flexible. It can produce many crops, from tobacco to carrots, other vegetable crops, cash crops and dairy products. We have a broad spectrum. The former county of Norfolk is noted for its tobacco. I would like to point out that in the budget it was the only area of agriculture that was mentioned, and only then because of the fact that two cents has been added to the tax on a package of cigarettes. I know there is a lot of opposition to smoking, but as I have pointed out many times before, I feel tobacco and smoking have been a tradition for many generations and I don’t think we are going to rule them out. I know we should be concerned about our health and should use tobacco in moderation, but I think it is going to be a crop that will continue to be utilized for many generations to come.

In 1975, $101 million was collected from the tobacco industry in Ontario; in 1979, $292 million will be collected from tobacco in the sales tax alone. That is an increase of 300 per cent, and because it is not getting too much opposition from many members on any side of the House the government can increase these taxes. The average working person certainly has to be considered; he has to decide if he wants to continue to use these products, so I think we have to be very careful we are not taxing the tobacco industry out of existence.

I would also like to express some views on job opportunities. There is a need for processing of our crops, both fruits and vegetables. Again last year there were no Ontario strawberries processed in Ontario, not one berry. All the producers worked towards the commercial market, the fresh market, and when the figures for the total consumption of strawberries in Ontario were all in, 18 per cent were Ontario grown. I think we can get a much larger share than that. I know we have to have imports, we can’t grow them on a year-round basis, but we certainly could come up with a bigger percentage than 18 per cent.

I would like to point out that there was no indication in the budget, by either the Ministry of Industry and Tourism or the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, that there is going to be any assistance given for projects to encourage the young people to go back to the land, to the farms. Our critic for agriculture, my colleague, the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell), indicated the other day that we are being taken over by foreign money. Our land is being bought up, making it almost impossible for our young people to purchase it, because there is no way they can compete while our dollar is devalued and foreign money is getting more valuable. I think anyone who buys land has to know the relationship between what it will earn and what it will pay for. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) should be looking at programs to provide an opportunity for our young people to get back to the land. We should, also, have programs to make sure that we are processing our tomatoes, our strawberries, our vegetables; and I think our particular area of Ontario would be a good place to start. We should be encouraging the establishment of small or private enterprise so that we can maintain a basic agricultural industry, along with manufacturing and other industry, to have a better community for our urban and our rural people.

Another area where there is potential is indicated by the fact that Ontario farmers are spending $240 million a year on farm machinery, but we are producing only about 60 per cent of that machinery in Ontario. These industries use tremendous amounts of steel, and we should be encouraging their support and development; I do not say that we should not import but that we have to encourage the development of our own resources.

I would also like to point out that 40 per cent of all jobs in Canada are oriented towards agriculture and agriculture-related industries. It does have tremendous influence, and I think we should be speaking out in that regard. But, the budget had nothing to say about that; there is no indication at all. I would have to be critical of the Treasurer for that lack in his budget statement.

As far as industrial strategy and job opportunities are concerned, I would like to point out that we have received many applications for jobs, particularly from students who do not have their grade 12 education. After doing some research, I found that 50 per cent of our young people do not complete grade 12. When they go for jobs, they are eliminated from even applying for positions at Stelco, Hydro and Texaco and for almost any government jobs. It must be brought to the attention of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), and it has been, that we should have some special programs.

I would like to point out that we have a strike in the Haldimand County Board of Education at the present time. I am concerned not only for the grade 13 students but for all those students, because with today’s lack of job opportunities it is necessary that our young people be given every opportunity so that they will be ready and able to apply for these jobs.

We should be having special retraining programs because, even if they do not have grade 12 education, many of these young students do have special talents and they have special places in our overall program. They should not be considered as being second class, and they should have the same opportunities as other students in our system.

I would also like to mention at this time that only two or three weeks ago we did open a community college in Simcoe, named the James N. Allan Campus of Fanshawe College of London. It is coming up with training programs, and I would like to give credit to the government for that. We had the opportunity of touring it; they are giving mechanical courses, typing courses and so on. But again they have to work closely with industries and the other colleges -- they should not work against but together with other colleges such as Mohawk in Hamilton, and with Stelco and the other industries that are coming in -- so that we can retrain our young people to fit into these positions. I know they have the talent and, given the opportunity, they can achieve the skills they are best equipped for.

There are something like 1,350 positions coming up at the new steel plant in the industrial park. Stelco has indicated that 800 of those positions will be given to local people if they can be found. It’s hoped that many local people can be retrained to fill these positions. I am certainly going to make the company aware of its commitment and responsibility.

[12:00]

Another concern in my area is the Townsend town site. The Ministry of Housing announced in December that it would proceed. They did have some consultation with the region but not just before the announcement that they were going ahead and that there would be houses in there by 1980. As I said many times, I’m not against the Townsend townsite if there’s a need for it and I’m not against a new community being planned in the area. But I am concerned that we do have existing municipalities and we do have existing businesses, which are related to agriculture, providing basic employment from past years and up to the present time. My concern is to protect those jobs and those job opportunities. I think we can live side by side and work together.

I would like to read some comments made in February when Bob MacDonald, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Housing made the announcement to the regional council. “Regional chairman Keith Richardson voiced the main concern of area politicians since start-up details were presented to regional council February 8. ‘The only real concern I have outside of the project’s details would be the timing,’ said Richardson. ‘After timing has been resolved, there are many fine details we must go into.’”

That was in February. They would like a decision by this month so they can keep on schedule. I think the chairman expressed the concerns as well as anyone on behalf of all the people of the region of Haldimand-Norfolk. “Mayor George Dmetriuc of the city of Nanticoke said he would like all available information from the past four or five years presented in a lump package before he makes a final decision.” To make a decision of that magnitude, that will affect that part of Ontario for many generations to come, I think it is crucial that they be given enough time to make sure the government isn’t using its strength as a lever to develop it, but is working in conjunction with the area so we can all be proud of it in the future.

I would like to point out the comments of Mayor David Peirson of the town of Haldimand. He said: “I don’t think this report will say anything other than the fact that the town shouldn’t go ahead. Personally, I have no objection to them getting it ready to go, but as far as construction goes I think they’re very premature.”

The mayor of the township of Delhi, Arn Sayeau, said: “I’m still not happy with it.” The mayor of the township of Norfolk, Clarence Abbott, indicated: “If the population changes greatly, that’s fine. But another 1,000 to 1,500 people in the region is nothing. We can absorb them and not even know where they went. I’m sure they’re not all going to the same place anyway.”

Township of Dunnville Mayor Marshall said: “Dunnville alone can take another 5,000 people with the existing water and sewage facilities.”

I would like to point out that the region has spent up to $15 million on improving its facilities. This is provincial money provided by the Ministry of the Environment. They also have put in a water intake at Nanticoke with an expenditure of something like $20 million. I think that’s good planning for developing the Hydro plants.

Mr. Hodgson: How do you get so much money there?

Mr. G. I. Miller: I say it’s going to make a return to the province, I’m not criticizing the expenditures.

Mr. Hodgson: Give the province a little bit of credit for developing that area.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I am.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He’s one member who always gives credit where credit is due.

Mr. G. I. Miller: That is correct. I will be fair to the member for York North. I won’t be critical. I want to see development as much as he does.

Mr. Hodgson: That’s what I wanted to hear you say.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Don’t be greedy.

Mr. G. I. Miller: After 35 years I think you’ve heard it quite a few times arid I know you’ve been patted on the back, but I would like to think the members on this side of the House could run Ontario as well as anyone else, given the opportunity.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Better; we’d have more members in the House anyway.

Mr. Warner: You just came in and some left.

Mr. Acting Speaker: I think it’s time for the Speaker to call for order.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I feel very strongly, having been born and raised in the area, I want to see that area of Ontario be progressive, be something that we can leave, look back at and be proud.

I think the member for York North has some part to play in the development of the Townsend townsite. I might say that perhaps he is much more knowledgeable than I am, because as a member I have never been kept informed all that much. I’ve had to pick and find what is going on. As a matter of fact, from the point of putting in water and sewers, I asked for a plan on the area and I still haven’t received it. I think this government would like to keep us in the dark as much as possible.

Mr. Hodgson: Why didn’t you request it of the parliamentary assistant? He might have got it for you.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Okay, I’ll accept that. I won’t forget it next time. I’ll remember that well.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He said might.

Mr. G. I. Miller: In Simcoe, as the mayor of Dunnville pointed out, they have the potential for 5,000 additional people. They have the water and sewers available. We have the water intake at Nanticoke which, again as I have indicated we spent $20 million to develop. It is now into the industrial park, it is into Stelco, it’s into Texaco, but the lever that they’re holding over their heads in the area is the fact that before they’ll give water to Jarvis or Hagersville, Townsend has to have their agreement. I don’t think that is necessary. I think the region of Haldimand-Norfolk is responsible enough that if we leave it to make the decisions it will make them correctly. I don’t think they should be using the carrot approach to get the province to justify the expenditure that the province has made over the past seven or eight years.

The population projection which was in the Conservation News, the Conservation Council of Ontario, April 1979, indicates that the population of Ontario was projected to be 12 million by the year 2000. Now they have reversed that and the indication that the population of Ontario by the year 2000 will be something in the area of 10 million.

I would just like to point out that the city of Toronto’s population has not increased. As a matter of fact, I think it has decreased. The city of Hamilton is having difficulty with utilizing condominium apartments. I think there are many available. As a matter of fact, I know a condominium that has been built for three years and I don’t think there is over a handful of those units utilized now. It’s not a small one, it’s a big one. As we tour Ontario, indications are that industrial land is not all that needed, the demand is perhaps not there. We had the opportunity of going down to Parry Sound and looking at one of the industrial parks there. It’s a beautiful park, and again I would like to give this government credit. They have established it. They have the water and sewers available. It’s first class water. It’s about 1,000 acres. I think it’s a fine move, but in that site there are only four utilizing it. I think they’re employing something like 70 people, but one building was started two years ago and it’s not completed yet. They’re not utilizing it. One housebuilding firm had trouble keeping its head above water; they are just on the borderline.

There was a steel manufacturing business there. It’s been operating one year. They’re bringing in used equipment. Muskoka Steel is the name of the company. They are making reinforcing rods. That company has gone broke now. They took the equipment out and they moved it down to Cobourg, where apparently it is being run by a successful businessman there. I think the record of the operator in the Parry Sound industrial park wasn’t all that great. Apparently, he has now moved on to another area in the manufacturing field.

I’m not being critical of the individual. I’m pointing out that we have to be more careful in how we select these people to get involved in business. We have to make sure they are not just taking advantage of the programs, we have to make sure they are on solid footing.

It just points out one more time the question of whether there is that much need for industrial land in Ontario. Should we be utilizing the facilities we have now? Should we be developing the downtown areas for industry, the areas where the people are? Should we be moving out to the country and taking good agricultural land and utilizing it for industrial purposes.

I say we don’t need to. I say it’s time to take a look at what we do have. I say it’s time to redevelop our downtown areas in our existing communities. That is where we can stimulate the economy. We shouldn’t continue to hand out; it’s time to pull back in, consolidate, provide jobs for our young people and provide them with opportunities.

Again, as has been pointed out in this House during the past week, the opposition strongly condemns the government for sponsoring advertising in the British newspapers for skilled workers while there are 319,000 people unemployed in Ontario. Apparently, an ad in the London Sun in March called for experienced tradesmen to work in the General Motors transmission plant in Windsor. Although the ad was paid for by the automotive company --

Mr. Acting Speaker: I recognize the member for Mississauga East with a point of order.

Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to do this, but we have so few members in the House that I don’t see a quorum and I find that an insult to the present speaker. I would like to ask you to recognize that.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The Clerk reports there is not a quorum.

Mr. Acting Speaker called for the quorum bells.

On resumption:

[12:15]

Mr. Acting Speaker: The Clerk reports a quorum and I would ask the member for Haldimand-Norfolk to proceed.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I would like to thank the chief whip of the government side of the House for bringing to the attention of the Speaker that there wasn’t a quorum, and I certainly appreciate the members coming in.

I was in the midst of remarks on the employment program for our youth, criticizing the government for their policy.

The opposition has strongly condemned the government for sponsoring advertisements in the British newspapers for skilled workers while there are 319,000 people unemployed in Ontario. Apparently an ad in the London Sun in March called for experienced tradesmen to work in the General Motors transmission plant in Windsor. Although the ad was paid for by the automotive company, it was placed and sponsored by the Ontario government’s selective placement service in London.

When asked why Ontario residents are not being trained to fill such positions, the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) replied she was not aware of the advertisement; and while adequate training exists in Ontario, the government can’t go out and coerce people into the training program. I know the minister can’t go out and coerce people into the program, neither can members of this House go and coerce the people into the program, but I think they still have to be encouraged and given that clear opportunity and that is all we are asking.

We have to encourage our young people. I think they are willing to accept responsibility. This has come out to me quite clearly in the strike in my riding of Haldimand county, when our young people went so far as to come and ask me to ask the Minister of Education what their rights were, and what they could do to bring the teachers and the board back together so they could get back in the classrooms. I admire those young people for that. They are our future leaders and I think they can be very responsible.

I know the minister is concerned about the strike and I hope she might intervene and get those students back into school as soon as possible.

I was discussing the influence of Townsend area industry in Ontario. I would like to go back to the subject of Townsend site and how I feel it should fit into our area. I know Jarvis is a little municipality of 1,000 people and I know Townsend could well overshadow it, but I would hope we do encourage it to develop along with Townsend so we don’t have a new community that is strictly made up of a little mining or a row-housing town.

We want to plan for the future and make sure the homes there will last for generations and the families there will last for generations, because this is really what we are providing. We are providing the grass roots for generations to come. We have the working opportunities, we have the opportunity to plan and make it effective as one of the finest municipalities in North America, perhaps in the world. I don’t think we should fluff it by being pressured by this government to proceed when it is at a distinct disadvantage to the rest of the municipalities in the area.

For example, Port Dover, which has tremendous potential, has been a dormant town for many years, but it is geared to go up to 15,000 to 20,000 people. They have their water source right there; they have a good supply. They have the recreation areas. Hagersville is another example of a community with the needed water.

The Ministry of the Environment or the Ministry of Housing has indicated that Townsend, Hagersville and Jarvis won’t have the water until Townsend is allowed to proceed. I say it should be in reverse: Hagersville and Jarvis have been in need of water since 1970, or even before that. I think they should have the priority; they should be given the first opportunity. They wouldn’t have to spend that $60 million to provide the services for the new town site. A fraction of that would put the water into Jarvis and Hagersville and allow them to proceed and to stay alive, because they have the Lions’ clubs, the ball parks, the churches and the schools. There are educational facilities sitting there, particularly in Norfolk county, that are not being utilized; they are cutting back. These are the areas we have to scrutinize and take a close look at, because that’s where the waste in spending is. That’s where our budget runs amiss. We have to take a more responsible attitude and make sure that we’re making the right moves.

Nothing discourages me more than to see an old, falling-down barn, a field with chickory or weeds in it, or a woodlot that’s not being worked properly. We have those facilities there, and our young people want to take advantage of them, to utilize them and to make a fair dollar.

We have to work together with the agriculture industry, and the urban development industry, and we can have a great community. That’s my goal, and that’s why I wanted the opportunity to speak this morning. I know the pressure is on the regional council of Haldimand-Norfolk. I know they want to come up with a decision as quickly as possible. But they shouldn’t have to make that decision so quickly; they should be given the time and the opportunity to make the right decision, working with the government and not against it. There has to be teamwork. That’s what I feel is so important, and I’m glad to have had the opportunity of bringing this matter before the House this morning.

Another concern of mine that I would like to express is that the payments back to our municipalities have been on the decrease. The municipal governments have been asked to pick up a larger share of the overall costs of education, to use a good example. Education is the biggest spender as far as the tax money is concerned. It was only a few years ago that we were getting 60 per cent of our education costs paid for by the provincial level; now in some instances it’s down below 50 per cent.

While I haven’t been all that much in favour of the regional government we have had come in, I do see its advantages. It has provided some services, such as planning, that we wouldn’t have had otherwise. But it has also increased the costs. If it had really been effective, this provincial government would have been picking up a larger share of the costs, because if there is more responsibility at the regional level, then there has to be less responsibility at the provincial level. There has to be a place to ship the money back to that area where it can be used more effectively.

As I indicated, education is an area that probably represents 58 per cent of the total tax bill of our region and of many other municipalities. I’m not saying that we don’t need the education, and I’m not pointing at the teachers or our system, but I think we have to be aware of its cost. Maybe the funding should come from a different direction. Maybe it should come from the Treasury itself; I know it would put a shift on and there is only so much to work with, but I don’t think we should be loading the real estate tax down any heavier than it is because, as we all know, housing is important to our young people, as it is to everyone, and we should encourage that.

We have lots of room to develop and we should allow the competition to persist.

Getting back to the Townsend town site, where we have individuals who have land they want to develop, we also have the government owning land and wanting to put housing on the market. We should encourage those people to get their land and their houses on the market and make them available. Let competition work and then we will have the housing that young people can afford. I have six young people who need housing; two of them already have houses, four do not. I want to see them have the same opportunity I have had for a home of their own, and I think that is possible.

I would also like to mention road subsidies, particularly in the city of Nanticoke. The Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) was in the House a few minutes ago but I see he has left. I received a letter the past few days from the city engineer in Nanticoke in regard to subsidies for bridges and bridge building. He mentioned that this was the first year of the subsidy rate being reduced for bridges and culverts from 80 per cent to 74 per cent and noted that because Nanticoke was designated a city this formula was utilized. It is no more a city than any other area of my riding. It is three separate townships and three different towns and villages -- Waterford, Port Dover and Jarvis, plus Selkirk and a couple of other smaller places. Yet this government has seen fit to reduce the 80 per cent subsidy on bridges which everyone else in southern Ontario gets, to 74 per cent.

It is throwing more responsibility at Nanticoke because of regionalization, because it has re-organized. The community is being penalized for doing that when it should be the other way around, the government should be encouraging the new centre. If the people there are taking on the responsibility they should be given the funding that is saved in other areas to do a better job in that so-called city.

I would like to reiterate that we want to encourage private enterprise to develop houses for our young people. If they don’t want to compete, if they have a monopoly on the market, then of course I think we can utilize that Townsend site; but I would hope this government would encourage the private enterprise system to work as effectively as possible so that we can give everyone the same opportunity, whether it’s a big developer or a small developer, whether it’s the homebuilder who works on an individual basis or whether it’s a company. I think they all should be given that opportunity and encouraged, because that’s where the so-called free enterprise can be made to work on behalf of us all. I think that’s the direction we should go.

I would now like to turn to industry and tourism for one moment. We do have a lot of history in my area. We have 90 miles of lakefront along Lake Erie. This past week I had the opportunity to read the history of Long Point, which has been prepared by Harry Barry. It takes us back to the early 1600s. I think it was 1615 when Champlain went up Lake Erie and discovered Long Point. As you read that book, it’s fantastic. It’s our heritage; and it happened to be a Frenchman who made the early discoveries. This is the basic tradition for our one Canada, French and English speaking; that’s the way Confederation was set up.

There is also a tremendous wildlife population in the area. The wild geese and the wild ducks traditionally travel that area. It’s a tremendous fishing area. Last week at Port Rowan they had what was called a marsh hare dinner. I don’t know if you have had marsh hare, but I was kidding my secretary and some of the girls downstairs that I would bring a little bit back for them. I think it’s really muskrat. They had 1,052 of them cooked and the feed was put on by the Lions’ Club of Port Rowan. It was a beautiful dinner. I was a little concerned about what the meat would taste like but it turned out well. We have a great community. I would just like to read to the House a letter I received from the Port Rowan-Long Point Chamber of Commerce, dated March 27, 1979:

[12:30]

“Further to our conversations of the past, I now have consent from most of our business community, and am writing on behalf of the Port Rowan-Long Point Chamber of Commerce to request that this resort be designated as depressed, and perhaps favoured by any assistance government agencies can extend.

“When we first bought our property in this area, the village population sign read 960 [now in the 800s]; there were two LCBO-licensed hotels that also had accommodations, and one non-licensed hotel with rooms and meals catering to the tourists; a motel at the beach, cabins and cottages for rent, and many tourist homes. There were crowded beaches. The provincial parks at one point boasted filling 800 sites on busy weekends and full campsites weekdays during the summer season.

“The hotel on the beach was closed before it burned; the motel on the beach deteriorated and is now closed and for sale. One hotel in Port Rowan burned and was never replaced, the other gradually phased out all of their rooms. There is only one person now in the business of renting cottages and one tourist home.

“The provincial parks have no overflow sites, consequently we now can accommodate less than half the 800 once boasted. Many sites are continuously occupied by senior citizens, who are admitted free, and most of the remaining sites are filled prior to the weekends by local campers, most from within a 50-mile radius, who pull out again Sunday leaving many empty campsites weekdays. There is little or no parking at the beach now, except inside provincial parks, consequently we have miles of empty public beach. Many of our businesses have closed, or are operated entirely by owners, leaving our labour without hope for local employment.

“As you know, the Long Point-Port Rowan area has more natural and historic interest for tourists than almost any other Canadian resort, as well as being located close to many heavily-populated areas. The Lakeshore study, made prior to regional government, makes special note of their suggested future for our area, for example Port Rowan should have motels and accommodation for the travelling visitor.

“The Ministry of Industry and Tourism at every visit advise us we must have accommodation facilities for visitors. In our present state it is very hard to interest investors to develop new seasonal accommodation or even to upgrade existing businesses. Our immediate priorities are for risk capital at a reasonable rate of interest and repayment, and for improved access to our area.

“For many years we have been promised a scenic route along the north shore of Lake Erie. By combining highway 3 with county, township and regional roads presently in existence we have just such a road. Our immediate requirement is to have the route designated and shown as such on new Ontario road maps, in tourism literature and on signs and road signs strategically placed at or as near as possible to border crossings and enroute from one end of Lake Erie to the other. These are two very important steps and may help us to become a tourist resort again.

“We will appreciate anything you can do to help us attain this status.”

It is signed by Harry Stark, Junior, public affairs committee, and Patty Rice, chamber of commerce president. A copy of this was sent to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism at Kitchener and the Ministry of Industry and Tourism here at the Legislature.

I have given members the history of the area, and it is there. We have not only Port Rowan, but also Port Burwell, to start at the far side; and farther up Port Stanley. I know my colleague, the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan), has discussed this scenic route being designated. There is also Port Burwell, Port Rowan, Turkey Point, Fishers Glen. Normandale, Port Ryerse, Port Dover, Nanticoke, Selkirk and Port Maitland. You could go on down through Lowbank, Welland and the whole area.

It is a tremendous area, with tremendous scenery. It is very versatile and different from location to location. I think the farthest point would be within 100 miles of Toronto. We have a route with fantastic scenery and it’s an opportunity for urban dwellers to get out into the country, but we are not taking advantage of it.

I would like to criticize the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) again. There is nothing wrong with catering to and opening up the north. I think it is great that we are developing that, but we must not forget what we have here too. There has to be sharing and co-operation; that is the name of the game. I want it brought to the minister’s attention that we do not have the facilities, but the potential is there and it is up to this ministry to take the leadership in putting all this together. I would hope he would give it his consideration.

One more point I would like to make -- and again, my colleague, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), discussed it in the House briefly the other day in question period -- has to do with the present setup of the disaster relief fund. I would like to point out that the recent storm did considerable damage. On April 6 there was a strong westerly wind which raised the waters of Lake Erie. This also happened back in 1975. The village of Port Maitland was a main centre back in the early part of this century, but today, because it has not been encouraged, and the modes of transportation have changed, it is a little community that has gone downhill rather than going ahead, but the potential is there for development.

Some local old folk--I think it was six in this particular case -- were flooded out with the water coming up 10 inches higher than it did in 1975. There has to be some way of giving these people assistance. While there were only six families I think they are as important as the many on the Red River today. I would like to bring to the Speaker’s attention the resolution that was brought forth by the city of Nanticoke on April 4, 1979:

“Due to the unexpected financial burdens experienced by many municipalities in Ontario from time to time as a result of violent storms and unexpected and uncontrolled flooding, and recognizing that the municipalities do not have the resources to cope with the frequently extreme costs of repairing such damage, the council of the city of Nanticoke respectfully requests the government of Ontario to forego its current policy of matching dollar for dollar under the Ontario disaster relief fund, and that in its place a disaster relief fund be established from which stricken municipalities may, on their own behalf as well as on behalf of their citizens, after proving their financial needs to the provincial authorities, quickly draw the necessary funds to repair their damages.”

I would like to put that on the record for the consideration of the Treasurer or the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs or whosever responsibility it may be; it could well be the cabinet. There is a need. Port Burwell suffered damage from that particular storm again this year, as it had back in 1975, and there was damage at such spots as Nanticoke and Port Dover marinas. They are providing a service to the communities and their season is short, so perhaps some consideration should be given for assistance to rebuild these facilities to provide for another recreational season. They do generate money on behalf of the economy of everyone in Ontario.

I think I have covered the issues I wanted to cover this morning.

Our financial critic, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), has made a tremendous contribution and done a great amount of research on the budget for 1979 and I support his views. I feel that this caucus is trying to show responsibility towards the best interests of everyone in Ontario.

Thank you for the opportunity to express my views this morning.

Mr. Warner: It’s quite obvious, from the attendance, that members were not aware I was to speak today, otherwise I’m sure the seats would be filled.

I appreciate the opportunity to vent my frustration about the cutback budget, otherwise known by most members of the assembly as the portrait of failure.

What I would first like to do is outline the major areas I’m concerned about, and which substantiate the failure of this government. Then we’ll go through it step by step. I would like members to think in terms of the issues of health care, jobs, our economy, food prices, housing, education, day care, small business; and as we go through consider the failure, the lack of leadership from this government to provide the stability that’s needed in each one of those areas.

The most serious at the moment is the health-care field. I think that by this time the litany of problems which have been laid at the doorstep of the government in the last several weeks, primarily by the leader of my party, has indicated to members of the House that our health-care system is under attack -- a health-care system which, I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, was fought for so hardly, quite a few years ago, by the CCF, and later by the NDP government in Saskatchewan. That was the beginning.

From that time we’ve managed to get the federal government to bring in a national plan, to set up arrangements with individual provinces. Each province, including Ontario, opted into that arrangement. Ontario, like other provinces, receives funds every year from the federal government. It has a mandate, under the BNA Act, to provide health-care services, and up until a short while ago was doing that reasonably well.

All of us know there are many areas in the health-care field which haven’t been covered. This was before last year’s budget and this year’s budget. There were quite a few areas members were concerned about, home-care programs for the elderly and dental-care programs for children, just to name two. Obviously, there are quite a few others -- such as medical research that is needed trying to reach a solution on the problems of cancer and other health problems -- all of which require funds and all of which require some government involvement. That’s why I qualify my statement by saying some “reasonable” success.

In the last while, however, we have witnessed the health-care system as being under attack. I find this very distressing, for several reasons. As a member of the select committee on health-care costs it was made evident to myself and to the other members of that committee of all three parties, that health-care costs in Ontario are not out of line, they’re not excessive.

[12:45]

We made a comparison with several jurisdictions around the world. We looked at the health-care system and costs in West Germany, the United States, Great Britain, Sweden, and the other provinces of Canada. We found -- I think to the surprise of some members -- that health-care costs in Ontario were not excessive when compared with those in other jurisdictions. In fact, when compared with those of the United States, our costs are significantly less.

Further, the committee found -- and this was agreed to by the Conservative members as well as by our members and the Liberal members -- that the reason our costs are less in Ontario is that we have a public system and not a private one. The major reason health-care costs in the United States are significantly higher is that they run the health-care system as a business, to make a profit; involved in that, of course, are the doctors who are allowed to own hospitals and the kinds of strange relationships which insurance companies can have with the hospitals and the doctors -- all of that contributing to excessively high costs in the United States. We have managed to avoid that problem in Ontario since we brought in a public health-care system.

Knowing that the costs are not out of control and that health-care expenditures as a percentage of the budget have increased over the last three years, why on earth would this government embark on cutting back in the hospitals, in the communities and, as the doctors see it, in the remuneration for doctors? Why would a government do that?

It is extremely important for us to view the health-care cutbacks, not in isolation, but with respect to the entire economy. What the government has, quite frankly, is a revenue-raising problem. The government is finding it more difficult to raise revenues, and there’s a basic structural reason for that. This government appears to have given up on the major source of income which we have available in our province, our natural resources.

It’s absolutely shocking to think that, while we have more natural resources than just about any other area in North America, we cannot garner sufficient revenue from them. In fact, if we want to look at a dramatic comparison, we can compare the natural resources of Ontario and our revenue with the natural resources of Saskatchewan and their revenue. While that province out west has significantly fewer resources than we do, it raises something like five times the amount of revenue that we do. They have learned several things out there that we have failed to learn here.

First, they have control of their natural resources; they’re not owned and operated by a foreign country or by international corporations which fold their tents in the middle of the night and steal off with our money. They are owned and controlled by the people of Saskatchewan, sometimes by the people’s representatives, the government, and sometimes in joint venture with private concerns -- but those private concerns will be Saskatchewan-grown concerns. The government, through its policies, fosters that.

Second, the government has the good sense to use the natural resources as a base to build secondary industry, and the processing and manufacturing that accompanies that. Do we do that in this province? We wouldn’t dream of it. It’s just not possible. In fact, we have reached the ludicrous position where in the mining industry we extract the goodies out of the ground but we don’t even produce the equipment that is used to extract those goodies. We import the equipment. Do we have the technology to build the machinery here? Of course we do. But we still choose to throw away the contracts to companies and corporations outside our borders.

It’s a portrait in failure, obviously. This province has lost control over its economy. That’s pure and simple. We’ve become a warehouse; that’s all we are. I guess the most blatant example, certainly which the Speaker is aware of, is Inco. Can you think of anyone more irresponsible than Inco? I can’t.

It’s a company which comes in here, extracts our natural resource, reaps a huge profit from it and takes that profit and invests it in foreign countries. It doesn’t invest it in the Sudbury basin. It doesn’t help create new jobs in secondary industry. It doesn’t guarantee that Canadian manufacturers will be used for mining equipment. It simply takes its profit and dumps it into Indonesia and Guatemala -- totally irresponsible.

To add insult to injury, it makes sure it is located outside the town boundary so that it doesn’t have to contribute to the taxes of Sudbury. No one could be more irresponsible as a corporate citizen than Inco.

Mr. Havrot: Nationalize it; take it over.

Mr. Warner: It’s a vicious, mean outfit and the member for Timiskaming knows it.

Mr. Havrot: Call in the army.

Mr. Mackenzie: That’s what the Tories want.

Mr Havrot: Get Idi Amin. He’ll take it over.

Mr. Warner: No, no; to the member for Timiskaming, we’ll just call on the people of Ontario and let them answer. This government one day is going to have to answer for what it has allowed Inco to do.

Mr. Havrot: Oh yes. Terrible.

Mr. Warner: It just can’t stand by idly and watch someone pillage the countryside and not raise a finger. Some day it’s going to come home to haunt the government and the member knows it.

Mr. Havrot: Absolutely.

Mr. Grande: I’m glad you’re so agreeable.

Mr. Havrot: Nothing to it; same price.

Mr. Philip: Why weren’t you so agreeable last night when you tried to do a coverup?

Mr. Warner: What is so astounding is that while I describe for the members of the assembly, including the member for Timiskaming, that Inco portrays for us the kind of irresponsibility which exists, it is but one example. In other areas, while we may have some responsible corporate citizens, they are not about to ensure that we develop our secondary industry or that we develop the manufacturing sector related to that without some leadership from this government, and we don’t have that leadership.

The best we’ve ever wrestled out of this government was the $200 million announced by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) as a slush fund -- no direction. And as we found out in question period today, not even any criteria. The government has the money to hand out, we don’t even know to whom or under what conditions. But we are guaranteed, based on the past record, that it’s not going to be used to build a stronger economic infrastructure in the province of Ontario. That’s sad, because our natural resources are the most obvious place to build a stronger economy. This province seems incapable of doing that.

Mr. Grande: It’s the government.

Mr. Havrot: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I don’t see a quorum in the House.

Mr. Warner: Well, I do.

Mr. Speaker called for the quorum bells.

On resumption:

Mr. Warner: The member for Timiskaming missed four valuable minutes of my speech. All that means is the speech will be an extra four minutes on Monday.

Mr. Havrot: The four minutes of silence was more appreciated.

Mr. Warner: It is so nice to know the north has at least one animated rock.

I would like to talk for a while on food prices. It was evident the other day from the response or non-response that we got from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea), otherwise known as the minister of corporate protection, that this government doesn’t have any legislation to protect consumers in the province against metric conversion ripoffs. It doesn’t have any legislation nor any proposed legislation.

Further, it is obvious that the government doesn’t have any meaningful legal protection for the consumer in terms of food prices. To add insult to it, yesterday this government decided to block the most meaningful proposal we have had put forward in this House to protect consumers against food prices.

Included in the blocking motion -- and you may not believe this, Mr. Speaker -- the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations took part in the deed that was done yesterday -- a deed which was a slap in the face to the consumer, because he is saying to the consumer, “Take your chance; we don’t care how high those food prices go, because this government isn’t going to do a thing to protect you.”

Shame on the minister and the government.

On motion by Mr. Warner, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.