Hansard Transcripts 1981-Nov-09 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

I recently received this very important study funded by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, entitled Program Availability and Student Needs in Part-Time Studies at Ontario Universities. This copy was not sent to me or to my party by the ministry; rather it was sent by the Canadian Organization of Part-Time University Students.

In a letter to the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson), the provincial co-ordinator of that organization says, and I quote briefly: "It has come to our attention that the Liberal and NDP education critics have not been as fortunate as our members -- not as fortunate in that the members received this study. In light of the importance of and to part-time studies and the students that undertake such studies this report illustrates benefits might be gained should all those individuals with concerns for part-time post-secondary education be as informed as possible. Any action taken by the ministry to rectify this situation would be appreciated."

I bring this matter to the attention of the House in the hope that that cabinet ministers can be encouraged to give opposition members at least a reasonable amount of information. I hope the minister's actions, or lack of them, in not sending us this report are not part of the government's new Suncor syndrome of providing as little relevant information to the opposition as possible.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question of the ministry -- the first question is what ministry? There are six people here -- seven, eight, nine -- they are coming in by the moment. We start at two o'clock as it happens. It may be news to the members opposite, I recognize.

Interjections.

Mr. Smith: I came in right after prayers. I prayed outside. I have more to pray about than those guys. I have to think of the future.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Smith: I will direct a question to the Ministry of the Environment for little reason other than the fact that he is one of the few people here.

The minister will undoubtedly recall that when we discussed the Ridge landfill court decision other landfill sites were then accepting liquid industrial wastes. The minister stated outside the Legislature that he was not surprised when we named the Tricil site and the city of Guelph site as places that are not properly licensed, according to the import of the Ridge landfill decision, to receive liquid industrial waste. This was because they have never had hearings pertinent to their suitability for receiving liquid industrial waste.

Now that the minister has had two weeks or more to go over his certificates of approval and his waybill information and so on, would he care to name any other sites he believes are in the same legal position as Tricil and the city of Guelph site? In other words, would he list places that have been receiving liquid industrial waste but have not held the proper hearings to permit them to receive such wastes, according to their original certificates of approval and certificates issued since?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think in essence what the Leader of the Opposition has said is correct, although those were not the words I used. I did indicate, as I indicated in the House, that the decision on the Ridge court case did possibly cast a shadow on some of the other certificates and I had suggested there may be more than a couple.

It is difficult to put them all into one category, because the history of each of the certificates is different. In some instances when the original certificates were issued they were nonspecific, as I believe was the case at Ridge. I believe that was a common practice at the time of the issuance of some of the original certificates. It is part of the history that we are living with and now trying to correct. The alterations in the certificates were not to add things to the sites but rather to recognize what had been practised there for years before; in fact, even the certification, perhaps, was not necessary.

I cannot at this point state precisely which sites the member maybe referring to, although I agree that there are other sites where there may --

Mr. Smith: Name them. Why will you not name them?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Because there are differing legal opinions on which ones are affected by that decision. I can assure the member we are watching it very carefully. As he may be aware, there has been an application for leave to appeal the Ridge decision, which comes before the court of appeal on the sixteenth, if I am not mistaken.

I certainly have a very keen interest in whether or not that decision will be appealed because, obviously, if it stands I may well have to take some specific actions. I am looking at those alternatives at the present time in anticipation of any possible outcome of that hearing.

Mr. Smith: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The decision in the Ridge case was crystal clear. Tricil and the city of Guelph plainly suffer from exactly the same impediment the court found stood in the way of Ridge -- namely, there had been no public hearings. Although the original certificate of approval did not permit them to take liquid industrial waste -- a well-known category, by the way, when those certificates were drawn up -- they subsequently did receive liquid industrial waste. It is perfectly obvious they are doing so without complying with the law. Why would the minister not name the other site? Perhaps he does not know of it.

Would the minister therefore care to take a moment to look at his records and check on the township of Mariposa, where 132,000 gallons of liquid waste were dumped, according to their own waybill records, between August 1980 and July 1981? They actually accepted liquid waste from 1979 to 1980, but the ministry did not give us that data, and they claim it was "a mere oversight." But between 1980 and 1981 132,000 gallons of liquid waste went into a highly sensitive area, the Mariposa Brook wetland tract. Since, according to the Ridge decision, this dumping would also be illegal, will the minister inform us when such dumping will cease?

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I can only reiterate what I said before. The assumptions the Leader of the Opposition is making are not necessarily the same as the assumptions made by all the lawyers who have had a look at that situation. I agree there are sites where a shadow has been cast by that decision. I do not agree -- and this is a result of careful examination by our staff -- that they are all exactly the same. The history of those sites is quite different and I think the decision at Ridge was quite specific in terms of it being directed towards that site.

Mr. Smith: Read it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have. I have it in my briefcase. I can assure the member it is a situation we are reviewing carefully. I think the decision as to whether there is leave to appeal the Ridge decision may be an important point in determining whether other action has to be taken. However, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make a decision on that at this time. If the decision of the lower court is going to be reviewed by the Court of Appeal, obviously the Court of Appeal may vary that decision. It may go further than the lower court and that may be instrumental in determining the course of action open to me.

Mr. Worton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I think the minister has used an appropriate term when he said "a shadow has been cast." The landfill site in Guelph was heard before the Ontario Municipal Board in 1971. Today there would be environmental assessment hearings. I have visited the landfill site. In my discussions with city officials, they are still of the opinion they are living within what is required by the law in regard to that site. To clear the air perhaps ministry officials from the Cambridge area should check to make sure everything is being done according to law. I think they are anxious to do that and I would also be anxious to see that is done.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, subject to any decision to the contrary by the court on that specific site, I believe what the staff in Guelph have said is probably quite correct. I am not personally familiar with the operation but I am advised by staff who are that it is a well-run site. They are not accepting any toxic substances that might give rise to concern on the part of the people of the community. With respect to legality, at this time there is nothing to indicate anything other than a legal operation is under way there.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF MEDICAL INFORMATION

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader. Does the government have any plans to bring in legislation in the near future to deal with the matters brought up by Mr. Justice Krever on the subject of the confidentiality of medical records? Would the House leader tell us in particular what view the government takes of the recent Supreme Court decision? I suspect he might be tangentially familiar with it, if not totally immersed in it.

As the House leader may recall, that decision gave to those doctors who revealed medical information to the police, where the patients may have thought the matter was confidential, the protection of being privileged police informers so the patients have no way of knowing who released that information. The patients are therefore at a disadvantage if they wish to have any recourse.

Given the recommendations of Mr. Justice Krever and the recent Supreme Court decision, will the government proceed with some legislation at least to make certain that when doctors receive information from patients it will be kept confidential unless there is a gross overriding danger to society obliging the doctors to divulge it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very important matter and one which the ministers responsible and the government are reviewing and taking very seriously. I must ask the member, however, to refer this question to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) who I regret will not be here today. I understand he and his wife have a brand new daughter, which I think is number six for his family. It --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Those of us who have gone through the birth of a first child know it is a very momentous experience. The Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), the government, and all the members of this House are pleased another child is being added to the population of Ontario because we need many more.

Mr. Breithaupt: Most of your members have given up.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Some of us have given up.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) has his chance to continue adding to that.

I am sure the Minister of Health will be making a statement on this important matter, and will answer these questions as soon as he returns.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, while waiting for our friend to return from his paternity leave, I would say how pleased we were with the moments taken by the House leader to comment on this. As my friend and colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) has said, "Finally, the government has now come out for motherhood," along with most other issues. I would have thought he might have got in a few words about the Queen while he was at it. He probably will in replying to the supplementary.

While I recognize this is primarily a matter for the Minister of Health, would the House leader in his capacity of ordering the business of the House undertake to bring near to the top of the agenda at least a partial implementation of Justice Krever's recommendations? We may have to study them all at some length. Surely patients in this province should not be afraid to talk to their doctors for fear this information will go straight to the police.

One of Judge Krever's recommendations was to make it very plain such information is to be kept confidential and under protection of law. He suggested the only circumstances in which it might be given out to organizations like the police is where there is a clear and significant danger to the public in withholding such information. Should implementing this not be one of the government's top priorities? Would the minister do his best to move quickly on this important matter?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I will pass that on to the minister. I hope he will be here tomorrow.

Mr. Breaugh: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: This matter has been released, at least in report form, for the better part of a year. Will the minister table with the House, so that we may understand where the government is going in this matter, documents from the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) and the Ministry of Health or any other ministries which may be involved in the collection of this information? What is the position of the Solicitor General, and what is the position of the Minister of Health, both of whom have agents of their own who will be either gathering or dispensing information related to this question?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I will pass that on to the minister. I am sure he will want to answer that question.

TRANSPORTATION OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow).

Mr. Rotenberg: Foulds for leader.

Mr. Watson: In the absence of your leader.

Mr. Foulds: Do the members want to heckle now or later?

Is the Minister of Transportation and Communications aware --

Interjection.

Mr. Foulds: Is the member running for Speaker?

Is the minister aware a tractor-trailer carrying a load of furs, spray paints, auto parts, and two radioactive containers crashed and burned near Kenora, Ontario, at the corner of Shoal Lake and Highway 17, on October 24, at 11 a.m.? Is he further aware the radioactive material was not identified on the truck; that the Ontario Provincial Police were not notified there was radioactive material on board until the following Monday morning, and that it took until 5:07 p.m. on Monday, October 26, for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited from Pinawa to respond?

If the minister is aware, what steps is he recommending to his government to ensure that incidents like that do not happen again?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have been aware that this accident took place in the Kenora area. I am aware that two canisters of radioactive material, used for the X-raying of pipelines, were being shipped to western Canada. These canisters were involved in the accident, were in the fire, but there was no radioactive leakage from them.

I had trouble following the rest of the question. First of all, without checking back to my records, I cannot say I am aware of the dates the honourable member mentioned. But I believe that is the approximate timing and date of the accident. I believe the investigation, as carried out by the OPP, and by representatives of my ministry, may very well involve laying charges, for the fact that proper documentation was not carried in the truck as to this material.

When our new legislation, both federal and provincial, is passed, relating to the carriage of hazardous goods it would require documentation and placarding of these vehicles. Still, under that legislation, the shipment and transportation in dealing with radioactive goods will remain the responsibility of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain to me how the placarding and so on would help in a situation like this where the truck burned for 12 hours? Can he explain to me, or is he satisfied, that it took 48 hours for the authorities to find out that this truck was carrying radioactive material? If the container had leaked -- and I agree from all the information that it did not -- is he aware that radium 192 was extremely dangerous for a person up to 25 feet away? If you actually held the stuff it could kill you. It is that strong.

Is the minister not conscious that if this accident had occurred in a heavily built-up area, like Mississauga, he and his colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry) would have been out there in their OPP parkas playing to the gallery? What steps is he going to take to protect the people throughout Ontario from the transportation of dangerous wastes, including radioactive material?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard an expert playing to the gallery. I will not pretend to be an expert who plays to the gallery, but I assure him the same protection will be given to the people of Kenora as will be given to the people of Mississauga.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, would the minister again refer to the report of the select committee on highway safety and implement those recommendations which were made pertaining to the transportation of dangerous materials?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, many things have happened since the report of the select committee on highway safety. First of all, the federal government has passed the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. Regulations under that act dealing with the transportation of dangerous goods under the different modes -- whether they be rail, air, ship or truck -- are in the final process of being drafted.

On the Order Paper on members' desks is the Ontario Dangerous Goods Transportation Act. This will provide for our government, mainly under my ministry, to carry out inspection and enforcement of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act for the trucking mode, whereas the other three modes will remain under the federal government.

I hope that bill will be coming up for second reading tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister not concerned that there appeared to be no response centres across the province to handle situations like this and that in a sense it was simply fortunate the accident occurred only 100 miles or so away from the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited base at Pinawa?

Is he also not concerned that Ontario Provincial Police officers, employed by his government, were on duty guarding the truck without being aware of the potential danger? Is he not concerned that if they had been made aware they probably would have responded in a different way and attempted to extinguish the fire in the truck rather than let it burn out?

Are those not legitimate concerns?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, I am very concerned about not only the OPP officers but also representative staff of my ministry who were on the site for a number of hours before it was learned this commodity was on board that truck. It is my understanding there was no placarding on the vehicle; there was nothing on the bill of lading carried in the truck to show this material was on board.

I believe, if I recall the details correctly, AECL had representatives from its Winnipeg office come to the site when it was found there was radioactive material on board the vehicle. Extensive testing was done. I know the staff involved at the site were taken to the hospital for medical examination to make sure they had not received any adverse radiation.

I make no excuse for the fact the shipper and the carrier should have been aware -- the carrier may or may not have been aware; I have not got a full report on whether the carrier was aware -- of what was in the canisters within cartons of what I understand was a general freight type of movement. Certainly the shipper should have been responsible. He would be responsible under the new legislation, as I understand its details, for making known what was in that shipment so that the trucker could be carrying the proper information as to what to do in the case of an accident and so the vehicle could be properly placarded.

CONSTITUTIONAL PACKAGE

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. I would like to know what initiatives the Premier plans to take within the next few days to ensure the concerns that have arisen because of the constitutional agreement do not come to pass.

What initiatives will the Premier take to ensure native rights are included or negotiated? He said there was room for more negotiation.

What steps will he take internally in Ontario to assure the women of the province that he will not use "notwithstanding" clauses, for example in legislation about equal pay for work of equal value?

Perhaps most important, will the Premier take the historic and statesmanlike step of indicating to the people of Quebec that Ontario is willing, ready and able to come under the jurisdiction of section 133 of the present British North America Act as a gesture of goodwill to the people of Quebec and that things still are worth negotiating in this Confederation of ours?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will try to deal with what really were three questions. The first related to the concern of the native people. The member pointed out there is a specific section in the agreement -- which all first ministers except the Premier of Quebec signed -- making it clear the question of aboriginal rights would be determined, we hope, by the first ministers. A meeting for this purpose would be at the call of the Prime Minister of Canada.

I would point out to the acting leader of the New Democratic Party that Ontario was not one of the provinces that suggested it should not be contained in the charter at this time. I think that position was well known.

With respect to the second question, I am not sure the wording in the charter specifically referred to the item he raised. This province, certainly in the field of equality rights, will not be passing any "notwithstanding" legislation. I think that much is obvious. So that covers the second question.

The third question touches on a very sensitive issue. This matter -- I think I am right about this historically and in terms of the point of view expressed by the Premier of Quebec -- was not an issue at the conference in any manner, shape or form. The point of view of the Premier of Quebec, of course, is that education is strictly a provincial matter, and it was not raised at the meeting itself.

As I tried to tell the House on Friday, the two areas in which the Premier of Quebec registered his disagreement with the document that was signed were, first, the question of fiscal equivalencies in cases of opting out and, second, the mobility question.

I made clear in Ottawa, and I restate, that from my perspective we in this province are certainly prepared to do anything we can to help in the debate or discussions that may take place. I do not think the conference of first ministers has precluded some other wording on the question of mobility as long as the principle is contained in the charter.

I have difficulty in not accepting the principle of mobility. This was one of the areas Ontario suggested, I guess, a year and a half ago -- whenever it was: two years ago -- along with the principle of free movement of goods and services. Incidentally I think that should be within the charter as a matter of principle. But we did not debate that any further; it was not acceptable to many others. The government of Canada, as I recall, was prepared to accept it, but I think Saskatchewan -- and I do not say this unkindly -- was less than enthusiastic, as were a number of other provinces.

So I would say in summary, on the first question, this province is not one of those which was not prepared to have it in. I assume there will be discussions between the government of Canada and the leaders of the native people as to how we deal with it.

With respect to the second, we had already supported equality rights in the charter itself and I do not expect that is going to change.

With respect to the third question, this province will certainly do all it can to find ways to ease the situation with Quebec, but I cannot tell the honourable member it is the kind of thing which would have any meaning to the Premier of Quebec, in any event, with respect to section 133.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the Premier not agree that the moment of history has not yet passed and there is still much to be done? Would the Premier not agree it is up to him, that it is indeed part of his role, since he is one of the people central to confederation and this province is one of the provinces central to confederation, to take initiatives to ensure the native people receive the aboriginal rights they deserve, not only in this province but also in this country?

Second, with regard to the question of the attitude of the Premier of Quebec, will the Premier of Ontario not agree that he must make overtures not merely to the Premier of Quebec but also to the people of Quebec and to the people of French-Canadian origin in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Taking the questions in reverse order, I think it is fair to say, at least at this moment, that it is not the decision of the people of Quebec but of the government of Quebec not to be included in that agreement. I regret that decision. I really felt that we worked quite hard and that it was worded in a fashion that would be acceptable.

If the decision is based solely on the mobility section of the charter, I still have difficulty understanding the decision, but I cannot put myself in Mr. Lévesque's position. It was perhaps more understandable when he said the fiscal equivalency was a matter of principle for him; yet, as I explained here on Friday, I find it difficult to build that into a formula when the fiscal transfer could be considered as an inducement to opt out of a constitutional change that one would hope reflected the "national will." So I cannot suggest to the honourable member that the position should be altered with respect to that.

I did point out, and the Prime Minister made it very clear, both in private and at the public meeting, that as a matter of principle that should be in but that no national government was going to penalize a particular province because it decided to opt out of a constitutional amendment. Once again, I guess that assurance was not sufficient for the Premier of Quebec.

With respect to the native peoples, if the member checks carefully with the native peoples as represented in this province, they will agree that Ontario insisted it should be on the agenda at the meeting a year and a half ago and that we were supportive of having the native peoples dealing directly with a first ministers' meeting. I can only say to the honourable member that Ontario did not ask that it be removed.

There was concern expressed by some other provinces -- I do not intend to identify them -- that the wording and some of the problems inherent in that were not yet satisfactory, and the Prime Minister really did include that in the statement. I believe all first ministers are committed to agreeing to this process. If there is some alteration in this by some other first ministers prior to the resolution being passed by the House, certainly Ontario would not stand in the way.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier give us any insight from his days of negotiating with Mr. Lévesque as to what the Premier of Quebec's objection is with regard to the minority language of education section in the proposed charter, particularly inasmuch as that Premier seems to have said in the past that he would be willing to agree on a bilateral basis with each of the other nine provinces individually to provide such rights if such were also provided in the other provinces?

Given that it could even be worded in the charter as nine bilateral agreements, if the federal government chose to so word it, rather than as one blanket statement, does the Premier have any real understanding of what Mr. Lévesque's objection might be under these circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be very reluctant to express what I perceive to be the point of view of a fellow Premier. I can only tell the Leader of the Opposition that my sense was that the Premier of Quebec regarded this as being in direct conflict with the existing jurisdiction in the field of education and that he felt this was fundamental with respect to their educational and language policy; I think it was that point of view that put him in the position of saying he would not accept it.

I do point out that my recollection -- and I am going by recollection and by the press conference -- is that he really did not refer to that, because the clause was very specifically worded that the other nine Premiers agreed that it would apply in their provinces and that Premier Lévesque's objection to signing the agreement was based on the other two issues. But if the Leader of the Opposition is asking me, I think it has been his position that historically it is a direct change in the powers of the constitution, that he regards the language and education areas as being totally in the provincial domain and that he probably would not accept it. However, he really did put forward his arguments based on those other two items. It was not on the education part of the charter.

2:40 p.m.

The Leader of the Opposition is substantially correct, because it was Mr. Lévesque's suggestion at either Charlottetown or St. Andrews-by-the-sea -- I guess it was there, but there have been so many conferences -- that there should be agreement by reciprocity. I think all provinces objected to that in principle, because one does not make anything as fundamental as minority language rights dependent upon a reciprocal agreement between provinces. That would not be my preference, and I expressed it at the time.

Mr. Foulds: I listened carefully to the Premier as he explained what had happened in the past. He used phrases such as, "Ontario will not stand in the way." However, having taken the one initiative last week of giving up the veto, can the Premier tell us if he feels that is enough for Ontario to do? Is he holding out for us no hope that he and his government will take some initiative in the future, in the next few days, to try to end the terrible isolation Quebec may find itself in?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am relatively modest but, with great respect, Ontario's statement that we might, under appropriate conditions, forgo the veto was not Ontario's sole initiative. It was somewhat more complicated than that. Ontario was substantially more involved in that particular suggestion, but I do not intend to go into that. If he wants to read about it, when I publish my book 30 years hence it will all be there. It will be factually correct, perhaps.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It will be an awfully thick book if you write like you speak.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It will be a very short book. I just repeat, I would have liked to have seen the Premier of Quebec sign the agreement. That would be my preference and, I think, that of all other Premiers. But I cannot honestly say to the acting leader of the New Democratic Party, and I hope he is not asking me to say, that we now disagree with mobility rights in the charter. I am sure the honourable member supports that as a matter of principle. I am sure he supports the principle that, if a province opts out, it should not be the financial beneficiary of opting out of a constitutional amendment.

Those are the two key elements as expressed to me by the Premier of Quebec, and I am sure the acting leader, the next leader of the New Democratic Party, in his own mind would not want to see us alter our position on that. I would not even if he did, but I am sure he does not.

I also have to make this casual comment: I saw that the honourable member was quoted over the weekend as saying he has more presence than charisma. I am not one of those who would say that; I think he has an equal amount of both. I will not say how much; I said equal.

FUNDING FOR EDUCATION

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. The minister will be aware that the federal Minister of Finance, Mr. MacEachen, has now said he does not intend to cut federal support for either health care or post-secondary education in this Thursday's budget. She will also be aware of the continuing funding problems, such as the one at Humber College here in Metro Toronto, where the jobs of up to 15 faculty members will be lost to help trim $3.3 million from next year's budget.

Now that Mr. MacEachen has made his commitment, will the minister give her personal commitment to properly fund Ontario's university and post-secondary system rather than continuing to stall while colleges like Humber worry whether they will even be able to survive?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that Humber College will continue to survive, and I am well aware that there is no doubt in the minds of those associated with Humber College that it will continue to survive.

I do not have such confidence in the utterances of Mr. MacEachen. I read the statement he made last week, which was reported as being a statement denying that there would be any cuts in funding for the established programs financing. Careful perusal of that statement will enlighten the member to the point Mr. MacEachen was trying to make, that he would give no such commitment. His circumlocution was delightful but he certainly did not commit himself in any way to no reduction in that area.

Mr. Wrye: I want to bring another statement to the minister's attention; it was made by her Premier. It should make the minister aware of the absolute confusion that is now in the ranks of Ontario universities and colleges -- confusion that has been caused by the kind of comments made by the Premier.

I refer to the curious column under the Premier's byline in the Brampton Daily Times of September 28, in which he reviewed the various funding recommendations in the Fisher report, including the proposal for a restructured system, should adequate funding for the present system not be available. He concluded the column by saying -- the minister will have a copy of it -- and I quote: "Since the report recommends such substantial structural changes, our government will be giving it very serious consideration before taking any decisive action."

Since the report only recommends restructuring of any kind if the government is not prepared to properly fund the system, am I to assume that the key recommendation, that the system be given the kind of funding it needs to survive, already has been rejected by this government?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No.

CANADIAN ADMIRAL

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry and Tourism --

Hon. Mr. McCague: Here he is.

Mr. MacDonald: Oh, he is here. I am sure the minister can hear while being mobile; so my question is this: Am I correctly informed that a management group from the Admiral corporation has approached the government with regard to a proposal in which they would be willing to take over the company rather than have it go down, which would mean the loss of some 2,500 jobs? If that approach has been made to the government, what is the government willing to do to accommodate it to realization?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, several groups have been in contact with the ministry with regard to the Admiral situation. I have indicated to all of those groups that the government is willing and prepared to do everything possible to maintain those jobs in Cambridge and Mississauga. That is the up-to-date situation.

I must say to the honourable member, and I hope he will bear with me, that the negotiations and discussion are very complex. It is made most difficult by the way in which proceedings were taken. As we try to work with all the people involved, it is fairly important that the identification of any of the prospective purchasers remain confidential between the purchasers and all of the players involved while we try to unwind the situation.

I can assure this House very clearly that the government will do absolutely everything reasonable under the circumstances to try to reconstruct the situation and get those jobs back at Cambridge and Mississauga.

Mr. MacDonald: I would be curious to know how many groups are flooding in to rescue the situation. Does the minister feel that he cannot answer the question I put to him, which was that one of those groups that is seeking with the government to re-establish the situation so the company can proceed is a management group from within Admiral, which presumably would have the experience of the operation of the company?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think there is a group from inside Admiral that has acknowledged that it is interested in it. In those circumstances, as is the case of anyone else who decides to indicate showing some interest, I will confirm anyone who wants to disclose themselves as well.

There is a group inside Admiral which has approached a very many people with regard to putting the thing back together, and everyone has one goal in mind: not only to see that the thing is restructured and that a firm carries on in those locations but also that it should be a strong, well-managed and properly financed organization so that we do not find ourselves back in this situation a year or two from today.

I do not prejudge that particular application as against any others. Of course, the final determinant of who shall operate those plants, if anyone does, as I hope they will, is not in the hands of this government alone. May I also say to the member that my staff and I have been working almost nonstop since last Thursday, including through the weekend and right up until 1:45 p.m., on these arrangements, and that level of activity will continue for as long as possible.

2:50 p.m.

I also wish to take this opportunity to indicate that, because of the nature of what happened here, it is likely to take several weeks, if not a month and a half or two months, until this matter is sorted out. But it is rather worth the effort being put in, and at this stage I can say that all the people involved are working very sincerely and openly and honestly to do what they can to get those 1,770 jobs back in place. But it will take a time frame of at least four weeks, I would estimate, and perhaps as many as eight weeks.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the relatively recent purchasers, York Lambton, raped the company of approximately $25 million shortly after their purchase of it from the American owner, Rockwell International, and that this rape of the company, because they ran down the equity, because they had to refinance and now cannot carry the interest payments, principally caused the rundown of that company? What is the minister going to do about that kind of theft out of the company treasury?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can only say this to the honourable member, Mr. Speaker: My job is not to find villains but to find heroes in this piece, and that is what we are going to try to do over the next few weeks.

TOURISM SALES TAX EXEMPTION

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Given that the minister has allocated some $38 million in this fiscal year under the Board of Industrial and Leadership Development program to stimulate the tourism sector in Ontario, does he plan to let the sales tax exemption on accommodation, which his government has proclaimed to be a major stimulant in this sector, expire as of December 31, 1981?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with tourism visitations in the province up 27.7 per cent, which is far in excess of any other jurisdiction, and with this government, through BILD particularly, giving us an extra $2 million to boost our advertising through our enormously successful Yours to Discover campaign, we are in a position in Ontario to have perhaps the strongest tourist industry anywhere in North America, by far and away the strongest in Canada.

Against that backdrop, my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), who is, as the member knows, intimately familiar with the tourist industry, has to make certain judgements. In accordance with his budget brought down several months ago, the member knows the Treasurer made that decision. The tourist industry has had an opportunity to speak with the Treasurer, both before and after that decision. If the member wishes to ask the Treasurer whether he is considering reconsidering that decision, he can feel free to do that when the Treasurer is here later this week.

Mr. Eakins: The minister surely has a great deal of input with the Treasurer on behalf of the tourism sector. While the minister speaks of the increase in tourism of some 27 per cent, he is very much aware that Tourism Ontario, in its paper to the federal government, has indicated this may not happen next year, because that 27 per cent takes into account many one-day and two-day visits of people coming across the border to get gasoline.

But my question to the minister is whether he is going to recommend that the sales tax exemption should be carried on after December 31. Yes or no? What is the minister's recommendation?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I say that on this side of the House we have one solid, consistent view on these things, and I can assure the honourable member that I support the Treasurer in his moves in this industry as well as any other industry. The Treasurer's track record in terms of helping to stimulate industry in this province speaks for itself. It is an excellent track record, which I continue to support.

I also say to the member that I do not know of too many people who come and stay for two days just to buy gas. So unless anybody thinks those figures are inflated, they really are not. I stand with my colleagues, as always.

DAY CARE

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I am sure the minister has met today in the building with the representatives from the Ontario Coalition for Better Day Care, which is made up of 19 organizations representing about 1.3 million people in this province.

Will the minister tell this House whether he is prepared to accept their three immediate requests to move towards their goal of universally accessible quality day care in this province by the year 1990? These three requests are: (1) a $5 subsidy per space in nonprofit day-care centres to permit upgrading the salaries of day-care workers, (2) the creation of 10,000 new subsidized day-care spaces and (3) the establishment of a task force to plan specific ways to meet day-care needs in both the long and the short run in this province.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, in the meeting this morning, I thought the replies of the Premier (Mr. Davis) were quite responsive and responsible. To sum up on the three thrusts, the Premier pointed out that the government is committed to the expansion of day care in this province, that the record of this province stands second to none anywhere in the country and that there was an open mind on the proposed task force.

I do not know whether the honourable member was there, but there was quite a discussion on just how open-minded the coalition was on the task force. In terms of the specifics, there were no commitments made.

Ms. Bryden: It seems that when this government is planning to do nothing it always speaks about leading the country in what it has done in the past.

Does the minister know that there are long waiting lists for subsidized day-care spaces, that there is almost no day care for children under two or those with disabilities and that there are no arrangements to extend day care to meet the needs of shift workers?

In the light of those facts, is the minister prepared to accept these three preliminary steps to move towards adequate day care in this province?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, I do not know why this minister is being asked, because the whole brief was to put it in the Ministry of Education --

Mr. Nixon: She hasn't got enough to do.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh, they had kind words in there for the member opposite, believe me. He should have come. Compared to him, I am one of the folk heroes of that particular group.

In response to the question that the member for Beaches-Woodbine has asked, I do not know how a government can be expected to put more into subsidized day-care spaces when one of those thrusts, the $5 per space grant, would almost entirely benefit the middle class. That point was brought out this morning not only by me but also by the coalition, which said, "Now is the time for a middle-class grant."

I do not know how the member can have it both ways. That is exactly the question I raised this morning. If the member wants more subsidized day-care spaces, why in the world is she talking about a universal grant that is not based upon need and would merely go to each and every parent who is utilizing the system, regardless of income?

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, will the minister assure this House that he is going to carry on not only with expansion of spaces for traditional day care but also with the kind of nontraditional day care that exists in Hamilton, where a 24-hour service is invaluable and essential for single parents, particularly women who are trying to enter the nontraditional job force market? We need more 24-hour day-care centres if we are going to have nontraditional jobs open to sole-support mothers.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I can do two things for the honourable member; the first is to reiterate the commitment the Premier made on behalf of the government today, that we will be expanding day care and continuing to provide a leadership role in the field in Canada.

Mr. Martel: That's some role!

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is a lot better than Saskatchewan. I wonder where all that oil and gas money out there goes.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question.

3 p.m.

Mr. T. P. Reid: How many day-care centres could be provided for $650 million?

Hon. Mr. Drea: How many would the member want provided? If anybody got dusted over the coals today, he did.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the minister respond to the question, please?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, why --

Mr. Ruston: Why don't you buy General Motors?

Hon. Mr. Drea: I beg pardon?

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections and respond to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, when my friend the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) bellows, it catches one on the way by.

To come back to the honourable member's question, one of the other thrusts mentioned most emphatically by the Premier this morning was the need for more creativity in the establishment of alternatives to the traditional model in day care. The question of 24-hour day care or 24-hour service providers is one of the things being looked at by the ministry now, and indeed we are asking for proposals in that area.

AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, this is in response to the point of privilege raised by the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) at the outset of this question period. I wanted to be absolutely sure before I responded to it.

The report he mentioned, entitled Program Availability and Student Needs in Part-time Studies at Ontario Universities, was funded by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. During September and October, it was distributed by the research branch of that ministry to all part-time student organizations at all Ontario universities and at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute and the Ontario College of Art, with copies to the Ontario Council on University Affairs, the Ontario Federation of Students and the Council of Ontario Universities. It was also distributed to the presidents of Ontario universities, and a copy was sent to each of the libraries and all continuing education directors.

On October 19, the assistant deputy minister of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities wrote to each of the organizations that received copies of the report, asking for their comments, which was the purpose of the distribution.

On Friday, when my office discovered the opposition critics had not been on that mailing list, my staff sent those members a complimentary copy of the report on Friday. I can only say I look forward with great interest to reading the response of the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of a letter being sent to every injured workman covered by workmen's compensation in Ontario regarding the proposed changes to the Workmen's Compensation Act? I quote from the letter: "Your benefits may be larger but never lower."

Since the minister knows, at least in the instance of widows, that a widow aged 39 will lose more than $30,000 in lump-sum benefits if the revisions are adopted, will he order the Workmen's Compensation Board to stop sending out this misleading information?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am aware the board had sent a letter to recipients of compensation. Naturally, they are trying to gather available information about what might take place if there were a changeover to a new system.

The member is a little in error when she suggests the statement made was inaccurate. If the honourable member would read the Weiler report and the white paper, she would understand that his proposal with regard to widows and dependants is in line with the Family Law Reform Act.

It does say that if a widow is under 40, I think it is, with no dependants, there would he a lump sum payment. It also indicates very clearly that in certain circumstances, for example, if that widow needed some assistance in rehabilitation or to get back into the work force, that too would be an obligation of the board.

It is an effort to distribute income to those who need it and to respond to the realities of life in the work place. The member may not think that is right, but a thoughtful review of that report cannot lead the member to any other conclusion.

Ms. Copps: A woman whose husband is killed on the job may have some difficulty understanding the minister's distinction.

Will the minister send another letter to these same workers advising them that if they opt to remain in the old plan -- which is their option -- they may never receive another cost-of-living increase in their workmen's compensation disability benefits? Why does the minister not talk about that in his letter when he says, "Your benefits may be larger but never lower"?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: There is some implication in the member's statement that there is an attempt to mislead. If she reads the green paper and the white paper she will know clearly that has been the understanding all along. There is no suggestion of anybody here trying to mislead anybody. That paper is out for discussion, legitimate comment and criticism and I am getting those comments, some of them good and some of them bad. That is what the process is all about. She should not try to suggest there is any misleading going on here.

Ms. Copps: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am not only suggesting, I am stating that this letter is misleading.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege, with all respect.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BANKFIELD CONSOLIDATED MINES LIMITED ACT

Mr. Robinson moved, seconded by Ms. Fish, first reading of Bill Pr9, An Act to revive Bankfield Consolidated Mines Limited.

Motion agreed to.

GREATER NIAGARA GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT

Mr. Kerrio moved, seconded by Mr. Ruston, first reading of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the Greater Niagara General Hospital.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answer to question 117 and the response to a petition, sessional paper 230, standing on the Notice Paper. (See Hansard for Friday, November 13.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the attentiveness of the House during my review of the ministry's activities. I recognize the member of Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) was not able to be with us last Friday. He did notify us to that effect and I am pleased he is here today to follow up. I sent him a copy of my remarks. If he wishes to follow them, as I am sure the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) is doing attentively, I will start on page 38.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: Page 38? How many pages have you got?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am just getting started.

For those members who may not have been here on Friday, I pointed out that this is the first session of the Thirty-Second Parliament, where the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs will be reviewed. For the benefit of the new members we felt it was important to roll out in detail the operations of the ministry once and for all. I assured the members I would not undertake this task in the future, but I think that once every four years it is important to roll it out. I hope members will bear with me.

Mr. Stokes: A lot of people would call it a filibuster.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I know they would.

Mr. T. P. Reid: A lot of people who are not so polite would call it something else.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: But I would remind those who are from northern Ontario that when we do get the opportunity to speak on the floor of the Ontario Legislature we should take full advantage of it -- to promote and support all the good activities that are going on in northern Ontario. I know the members share this view with me.

Mr. Wildman: You have a better chance. We cannot move closure.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If I may move on, Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of my remarks, if you would like to have them.

Mr. Chairman: We are having trouble settling down here, for some reason.

Mr. Wildman: The minister is being provocative.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No. I am trying to be very helpful and supportive of what is needed in northern Ontario.

When I wound up on Friday last I was discussing transportation policy for northern Ontario. One area in which northern Ontario really excels, and of course it is of necessity, is in the provision of local air services, the second activity within the northern Ontario transportation program.

Today northern Ontario boasts one of the finest local or feeder airlines in the world. I refer to norOntair, the air services arm of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, which is an agency of my ministry.

NorOntair now flies nine Twin Otters to 21 northern Ontario communities. In 1984 the ministry will become the first customer for the new de Havilland Dash-8. We have already contracted to purchase two for use in our main trunk lines serving connecting locations with Nordair and Air Canada.

We in the government are proud of what norOntair has been able to do over the past decade. The ministry supports norOntair's operating deficit in order to provide at least a minimum standard of regular air service to the communities in the norOntair network. In 10 years norOntair has been able to reduce its per-passenger operating deficit from $75 per passenger in 1971 to under $6 in 1981. That is in constant 1971 dollars.

This year we are marking the tenth anniversary of norOntair. Last week I reported to the House on the progress we have made over the past decade.

The rail and ferry services of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission constitute the third activity under the ministry's northern transportation program. Many southern vacationers are familiar with the MS Chi-Cheemaun, which carries passengers and vehicles between Tobermory and Manitoulin Island. This year the Chi-Cheemaun will be fitted with an additional car deck to increase its capacity by 25 vehicles. The Chi-Cheemaun will also extend its peak sailing period and offer additional peak period and Friday night sailings to accommodate increased traffic.

The rail freight services of the ONTC are its bread and butter, as they have been since the railroad came into being as the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario Railroad in the early part of the century. The Ministry of Northern Affairs funds the operating deficits of the passenger service of the ONTC as a commitment to the travelling public of northern Ontario. The passenger rail services of the ONTC include the Polar Bear Express to Moosonee, the Northlander from Toronto to Timmins and Northland service between North Bay and Cochrane.

In addition to these services the ONTC operates a bus line, a trucking company and a telecommunications network serving the west coast of James Bay. They will also be putting in telecommunications for the Detour Lake project. The ONTC prepares its own annual report each year which contains a full account of its financial and corporate affairs.

A good account of the development of the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario Railroad into today's modern corporation is provided in the book, Steam into Wilderness by Albert Tucker. I would recommend this to the honourable members as a good introduction to northern Ontario's early development.

As a ministry with a special mandate we must often strike a balance between the flexibility we need to meet the variety of opportunities presented by our many norths and the accountability we must maintain as a $156 million corporation.

Nowhere is that balance more carefully observed than in the ministry's northern community service and development program. Our goal in this program is simple; to ensure as far as possible within our mandate that our northern Ontario communities have a basic level of essential health, social, cultural and physical services. In providing these services, we look first at the communities that are helping themselves and taking the initiative in securing services or establishing economic development activity. We are talking here of a mix of hard and soft services, from water and sewage systems to the kind of one-of-a-kind assistance provided by our northern affairs officers.

The northern affairs officers are the cornerstone of our ministry, its grass-roots connection with the north. The NAOs are among the two-thirds of the ministry's staff located in the north and their activity is the first item within the northern community services and development program. The men and women of the ministry's field services provide a one-window, storefront service to the residents of the communities they serve. Simply, this means that an individual in a town with no Ministry of Health office, such as Red Lake, can get information on his or her Ontario health insurance plan claim or replace a drug card through an NAO office.

The same goes for employment standards, the Workmen's Compensation Board, Ontario tax credits -- in fact the entire range of Ontario government programs and several federal programs besides. If the NAOs do not have the information, they can get it through the telex and telephone network that connects all of them to our information services branch right here in Toronto.

The NAOs perform a variety of routine tasks besides, processing an average of about 1,000 customer transactions a month. They visit satellite offices regularly, they take an active role in the life of the community they serve and they help other ministries co-ordinate and deliver their northern programs.

On top of all this, the NAO finds time to take a personal interest in his or her clients or neighbours. Several of the NAOs have begun the very useful practice of organising government symposia with participation from local staff of other ministries. The NAOs also play a key role in helping unorganized communities in their areas form local services boards should those communities choose to do so.

This year the two community relations branches of the ministry to which the NAOs report will begin developing information packages geared to specific client groups. These groups might be single parents, widows or widowers or senior citizens. In the case of the latter, for example, we recently had the case in Dryden of a man over 65 years of age who had been asked to pay an OHIP bill because his coverage had stopped. Not only should he have had premium-free coverage, the NAO learned that the man had not applied for his old age pension because he thought it was some kind of welfare. Needless to say, Brian England, the Dryden NAO, helped the man make the arrangements to get the benefits to which he was entitled.

Mr. Stokes: Northern members do that all the time. You know that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I know that; I am not saying they do not.

Mr. Stokes: That is not unusual.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: But it just shows the variety of things NAO officers do. They cover a wide gamut of services to the people of northern Ontario. I think the member accepts that.

Our NAO officer in Red Lake, Pat Wallace, cut through the red tape for what could have been a bureaucratic nightmare to secure an extended Italian passport for an elderly lady who had to travel to Argentina with her mother. The mother was Canadian but had no passport at all. Pat co-ordinated the various official and travel logistics and the ladies were able to make the trip. Particularly noteworthy was the fact the bulk of the arrangements were made on a Saturday.

These examples can be multiplied right across the north and I give them just as illustrations of the dedication of the NAOs and the type of human challenges they face.

Mr. T. P. Reid: To say nothing of the members.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh, they get them. They do their bit, through their constituency offices. There is no question about it. Members will note that I used two examples in my own riding. I hope they recognize that. They can go outside.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Yes, I noticed.

Mr. Stokes: That is because the member doesn't have time to address himself to those things.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I did not go outside my riding because I felt there might be some criticism. I used typical examples from my own riding just to show you.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Does that mean you have 29 constituency offices in the north?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, I only have four. The Northern Affairs officers in my riding -- and I have four -- do have a special role to play because of my position as the local member and as the minister. Recently I had every section here in Toronto. I certainly recognize the extraordinary job they do on behalf of the Ontario government, with me looking over their shoulders all the time.

There is Ms. P. Wallace from Red Lake, Mr. K. Pride from Kenora, Mr. B. England from Dryden and Mr. R. Willis from Sioux Lookout. They do a good job. I am not saying they do a better job than others across northern Ontario but they do have the problem of my being their member and living right in the area.

Mr. T. P. Reid: And they know about it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Challenge is almost constant in any northern undertaking. As an example, take the community infrastructure activity within our northern community services and development program. Safe, reliable water and sewage services are a fundamental requirement in any community that hopes to attract new business and industry, provide for new growth or simply guarantee the health standards expected by its citizens. With the Ministry of the Environment, Northern Affairs assists in providing these basic physical amenities. I am sure the member for Lake Nipigon will agree with me on that point.

The challenge arises from the fact most of the north sits on bedrock on the Canadian Shield and laying sewer pipe in this rock is no easy or inexpensive task. As a matter of fact, Northern Affairs has worked with the Ministry of the Environment on the development of a low pressure sewer system. This relatively inexpensive system was tried and found to be successful in Belle Vallée in northeastern Ontario last year and we look forward to its application in other northern Ontario communities.

Over 40 water and sewage projects received MNA assistance last year, some through the Ministry of the Environment, others through direct grants. Many of these projects will be continued this fiscal year and eight new projects will be started.

Under the community infrastructure program we also provide funding for additions or improvement to municipal and remote airports. The rationale here is for expanded economic opportunities through the provision of basic physical infrastructure. Last year, with the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), we opened airports in Webequie and Bearskin. Before the end of 1982 we hope to perform the same task at Deer Lake and Sachigo.

If some of the honourable members do not think having these airports makes a big difference in the economic opportunities available to these communities I would urge them to visit some of these towns and discover for themselves the changes that can be wrought -- or perhaps I should say bought.

The final item for which the members will be asked to vote funds is community development activity under our northern community services and development program. This is a broad program, the goal of which is to ensure that basic medical, social, cultural and recreational services are made available to the residents of smaller northern Ontario communities.

A week ago last Friday morning, when I had hoped to begin these estimates, the public gallery contained a number of ladies and gentlemen who were down here to market their communities to medical and dental students in the five major medical centres in southern Ontario. They came from over 25 northern communities as part of the underserviced areas recruitment program.

Under the direction of Dr. W. J. Copeman of the Ministry of Health, this program conducts a week-long tour of the cities where the province's medical schools are located. The underserviced communities have an opportunity to tell their own stories. The majority of these underserviced communities are from the north and the Ministry of Northern Affairs provides a travel subsidy of $1 per mile from their communities to Toronto.

These people came to obtain the medical personnel and resulting services which are taken for granted in the rest of the province. They and their communities share our determination to provide medical care to the north utilizing a wide range of unique and innovative programs.

Our methods of attracting doctors and dentists and other health care specialists to the north are recognized as being among the most effective in Canada. I was proud to be able to share our ideas with others at the northern ministers' conference in Labrador in September who had equal concerns for health care in northern areas of their provinces. As a result, last week Mr. Brian Gifford was here from Alberta to study this province's methods of medical recruitment.

One of our most successful programs has been the bursary program, which is run in conjunction with the Ministry of Health. With funding from the Ministry of Northern Affairs, this program provides 50 medical bursaries, 15 dental and six audiology and speech pathology. These bursaries are worth $5,000 for students who contract to work in designated underserviced areas of northern Ontario. The bursary program is aimed at attracting general practitioners to the north where, at any one time, there is an average of 50 needed in underserviced communities. The bursary program also attracts dentists to the north for there is an average of 15 needed at any one time in underserviced communities of northern Ontario.

The success of the bursary program in the medical and dental fields encouraged us to pursue the idea further. This year we are adding three more bursaries to attract additional specialists in speech pathology. This year we will also provide six new bursaries for psychometrists and social workers with masters degrees. These bursaries will help to correct a long-standing shortfall in children's services in parts of northern Ontario.

The Northern Affairs bursary program ensures there will be a continuing supply of medical personnel in northern Ontario. The first two family practitioners from the present program went to Dryden and Little Current in 1980-81. Six doctors will be placed in northern Ontario by the fall of 1981, and 16 more doctors should be available for placement by the fall of 1982. Thirty-two more doctors will be available for placement by the fall of 1983.

Those figures are impressive especially to the northern communities who so desperately rely upon programs such as the bursary program to bring them the much-needed medical personnel. In the same vein, the bursary program will ensure that 14 dentists are available for placement in the north by the fall of 1982. Even when a small community has these means of attracting a doctor or a dentist, or both, there is often the problem of having no adequate building in which a medical practice can be conducted. My ministry solves this problem for many communities by assisting with funding to build medical and dental clinics. We have assisted 14 communities to acquire facilities or equipment, including Rainy River, Noelville, Larder Lake, Manitouwadge, Killarney, Chapleau, Cobalt, Geraldton, Nakina, Sioux Lookout and Red Lake.

In some smaller communities it is not practical to provide permanent dental facilities. That is why a key part of the special health services in northern Ontario is the mobile dental coach program. In its first year of service, Northern Affairs provided funding through the Ministry of Health for the purchase of five dental coaches for use in small communities without a permanent dentist.

Last year, with Health, we took another important step towards improving northern dental services. A school-based dental care program was set up for school children in the Kenora-Rainy River District. This dental program included 10 communities. Permanent dental clinics were set up in larger schools while portable equipment was used in the smaller schools. These communities are Wabigoon, Stratton, Morson, Hudson, Vermilion Bay, Eagle River, Sturgeon Creek, Emo, McCrosson and Pinewood. Where is McCrosson?

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Rainy River district.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I should know. These may be just a list of unfamiliar names to many but to the residents of these small communities, these dental programs are a giant step forward in health care for their children.

But my ministry looks out for more than just the needs of children in the north. Some of our elderly people in northern Ontario are benefiting from assistance provided by the ministry to fund facilities for senior citizens in Dryden and Terrace Bay. In Dryden we are involved in an interesting experiment at the minimal care Patricia Gardens facility. Patricia Gardens provides more care than a private residence, but is less restrictive than an old age home or hospital. A full-time nurse and one meal a day are provided by the facility, but otherwise, the residents are free to live their own lives. We are proud to be a part of this innovative kind of care for the elderly.

3:30 p.m.

One of the greatest challenges my ministry has faced is to ensure, with the Ministry of Health, that basic health care is brought to the north. Right from its inception, my ministry committed itself to improving medical and dental services in the smaller northern communities. This has not been an easy task, but I am proud to say this ministry is known for its ability to tackle the problems that others say are insurmountable.

For understandable reasons, southern health approaches do not necessarily answer the northern needs. And so my ministry, along with the Ministry of Health, has been required to be innovative so as to ensure a high quality of health care to northern Ontario.

One of my ministry's innovative programs deals with a very specialized form of transportation -- one which literally means life and death. I am referring to the air ambulance service which went into service on July 1 this year. My ministry provided $3.8 million in funding for this service. This program provides two helicopter air ambulances based in Thunder Bay and Sudbury, and two fixed-wing air ambulances based in Timmins and Sioux Lookout.

The success of this service was dramatically illustrated by an incident that occurred last summer during the first days of the air ambulance service. A young man working in a remote area near Killarney was severely burned in a propane accident. By chance a Ministry of Natural Resources crew was nearby and was able to take the young man to the Killarney Provincial Park gatehouse. His luck held, for the Killarney volunteer ambulance crew who, as it happened, had just received a new ambulance, were able to transport him to the Killarney Medical Centre.

In one of those chance interventions of fate the new Sudbury air ambulance helicopter happened to be in the area at the time and was able to land at Killarney, pick up the young man, and take him to the Sudbury Memorial Hospital. There he was promptly admitted to the hospital's new burn unit -- so new, in fact, that he was the first patient. That, Mr. Chairman and honourable members, is what practical self-sufficiency in northern health services is all about.

Air ambulance may seem to be a glamorous item for the emergency services in the north but it is only part of the story.

It is the aim of this ministry to provide the means by which most medical emergencies, as well as most non-emergencies, can receive high-quality treatment in the north at fully equipped hospitals and clinics, staffed by first-class professionals. This is not a lofty goal, but a practical goal, one which we are all well on our way to attaining.

All of these programs are indicative of my ministry's commitment to providing the best health care possible to the residents of northern Ontario. Certainly, they indicate that we have not been sold on the argument put forward by other politicians who seem to think the north's health care problems would be solved if my ministry simply handed out plenty of airline tickets to the south.

My ministry's health care goal can be summed up in a short phrase I just used: practical self-sufficiency. I am proud to say northern Ontario is well on its way to attaining that goal. A sophisticated air ambulance system, modern hospitals and clinics, a practical bursary program, an innovative step in care of the elderly, Ministry of Health installation of sophisticated equipment such as CAT scanners and burn units in our large medical centres, and outreach dental care programs are concrete milestones along the way. It has been a long, hard haul, but I am proud of the distance this government has come in just five years in the field of northern health care service.

Another way the ministry is helping the north to attain self-sufficiency in certain areas is through its local services boards program. In 1979, I introduced the legislation that permits small unorganized communities to form self-help boards to raise funding for such basic services as fire protection, water supply, street lighting and sewage disposal. This past fiscal year, we saw nine boards created, and by the end of this fiscal year we fully expect to have 25 local services boards operating in northern Ontario.

The Local Services Boards Act was the product of a dialogue held over a year between this ministry and the people the act was intended to serve. We held more than 20 meetings in these remote communities and made sure we were not going to be forcing anything unwanted on them. There was also a constructive debate in this House in which members of all parties participated, and eventually they supported the local services boards legislation. In fact, I have said many times that this legislation is so good that all political parties are taking credit for it, and I share that glory.

Complementing the local services boards legislation is the funding provided through our community development activity, which incorporates the former isolated communities assistance fund. We help isolated communities to acquire the same basic services they can raise moneys for through the local services boards. Most important among these services is fire protection; we help these communities to acquire firefighting vehicles and firefighting packages. Direct grants are also provided for firefighting facilities.

I could go on describing the activities of the ministry for some considerable time. We have accomplished a lot in the past four and a half years, but that does not mean we are satisfied with ourselves; there is still much work to be done. However, I think it is safe to say that northerners feel less alienated from southern Ontario than they did five or 10 years ago. I think it is true that this ministry, through its presence in the north, has helped to reduce significantly northerners' feeling of being remote from government, and I think it is fair to say that the ministry has established itself as a useful and effective member of the Ontario government team.

At this time, I want to take a moment -- and I am sure the other members will join me -- to say goodbye to a member of this team who has been so effective in working in northern Ontario, our deputy minister, Art Herridge. Members may or may not be aware that Mr. Herridge leaves us in December for a well-earned retirement, and I think it is fair to say that the ministry will be sadder for it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That's right; half your talent.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is right.

Art joined the ministry from the Ministry of Natural Resources, where he held senior positions in the resources and recreation and policies and priorities divisions. In the three years Art has been with Northern Affairs, he has filled his position with a sense of dedication and public service that has brought lasting credit to our ministry.

Art is certainly a true friend of the north. He spent half his working career there. He is committed to the principle that northerners should never feel they are disadvantaged in any way by geography, and he gives his full support to this ministry's decentralized structure to effect that belief. I am sure the other members will want to join me in wishing Art the very best as he moves into a well-earned retirement.

Mr. Stokes: You and I know he is not retiring; he is just changing his focus.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He is going to change his focus. Art is here with us, and the members all know him pretty well.

Mr. Chairman, I spoke about the other strengths of our ministry, but I would be remiss if I did not mention the staff in the regional offices. During my remarks I made extensive comments about the strength of the offices both in the northeast and in the northwest. I want to put on the record the support I receive as minister from my regional office here in Toronto. We have about 50 or so people who work in this section in the information, strategic planning secretariat and administrative support branches of the ministry. They are equally dedicated to working hard on behalf of all those people who work and live in northern Ontario.

As one would expect in a decentralized ministry where the chief function is to serve as resource to the regional staff, the information services branch, for instance, acts as a valuable conduit between the 29 Northern Affairs offices and the other ministries on whose Toronto programs they often provide information.

The information branch also helps the ministry with its consciousness-raising job in southern Ontario. I cannot do it all myself. Part of our mandate, as members know, is to increase awareness of the north down here; so information people are involved in such projects as Ontario North Now, the health recruitment tour, which I just spoke of, and the ski and sports shows that are held right here in Toronto.

At the very beginning of my estimates remarks, I mentioned the advocacy role we play and how we try to work with other ministries to help them define, improve or expand their northern programs and activities. This is a part of our job that, for obvious reasons, is carried out for the most part in the offices and boardrooms of Queen's Park. This is where the staff of our strategic planning secretariat find the decision-makers from other ministries whose ears they want to bend. This is where they need to be to keep abreast of other ministers' programs, changes and developments in order that our Northern Affairs officers and staff are plugged in at the appropriate times and places.

3:40 p.m.

Our Toronto office also maintains a well-stocked library, and I urge some of the members to consider using the library from time to time as a way of improving their knowledge of the north. Other Ministry of Northern Affairs literature is available in Toronto, including pamphlets on some of our programs and copies of our ministry's regular newsletter.

That concludes my remarks on the opening of these estimates. I sure in the next few hours we will hear from all political parties. I am free for suggestions, advice and any questions.

Mr. Chairman: Is the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) anticipating an opening statement, or is he moving right in to vote numbers?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, not only am I anticipating an opening statement but also I am going to make one. I am sure my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) is anticipating making one as well.

I begin my comments by wishing Art Herridge good luck in his new position, which we no doubt will all hear about shortly. I knew Mr. Herridge in his previous life in the Ministry of Natural Resources and had various dealings with him in his situation as Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs. I hope he is not the first of many who have decided they cannot stand it in Northern Affairs any more and are leaving a sinking ship.

My remarks are not aimed at Mr. Herridge or the staff but primarily at the minister and the government. As you can probably appreciate, Mr. Chairman, I do not share the enthusiasm and the somewhat Pollyanna outlook of the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier). My opening statement will be short, because I want to deal with many of these items under the particular votes.

At the outset, probably the biggest failure of Northern Affairs is that it has not shown much leadership or really addressed itself to its strategy outlined in the briefing book to the members on the 1981-82 estimates, specifically number two on page three: "a strategy to meet the objective of stimulating soundly based economic development and diversification throughout the north." This is where the weakness of the Ministry of Northern Affairs particularly shows up.

The minister, I trust, will come back and tell us, "We have this," and "We have that." Most of what he will tell us he has, would have been developed without any interference or assistance from the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

We still have the same problems we had in northern Ontario five years ago when this ministry was formed. If anything, they have become worse. We have seen the closure of two mines at Atikokan. We have seen the closure of mines farther north. We see what is happening in the lumber business, in the pulp and paper business, and even in the tourism business, because of the policies of this government.

What we have not seen in northern Ontario is any kind of comprehensive economic planning to do what is suggested under the minister's mandate: to diversify the economy in northern Ontario. We are still producing raw resources from the forests, we are still producing some minerals from the mines, and we are still dependent on a tourist industry basically for our employment.

What we still have, and we have fewer of them every day, are one-industry towns based solely on the extraction of forest or mineral products or on tourism. There has not been any addition to that economic base or diversification to ensure the stability and continuity of those communities.

Last year, during consideration of the estimates of the ministry, I asked what the program analysts were studying in the ministry; I asked what we were spending our money on. The minister promised he would send me a list of studies that were being done by that group. This is about a year later, and I have yet to receive that list of ongoing studies.

While a lot of these things the minister has outlined in his opening statement are very interesting and are helpful, they do not deal with the fundamental problem of northern Ontario; that is, the stability of the region, the opportunity for jobs which comes with the diversification of the economy, and getting away from the one-industry-town syndrome.

Almost everything that happens in our communities up there is dependent on that one very fact. We have difficulty attracting professional people such as dentists, doctors and so on to a number of communities, because they see them as one-industry communities in which that resource is going to be gone one day, particularly under the policies of the present government, and they are going to have to pull up and move somewhere else.

Until we can diversify the economy of those towns and make sure they are not dependent on the pulp and paper industry, iron mining, gold mining or tourism, then these problems, which the minister has tried to address and which he addresses only peripherally through his ministry, are never going to be dealt with.

The minister brags about what he has done in terms of northern Ontario through some of these programs. I warn the minister again, and I think he knows, that I am one of the few who really wants to know what is happening to the money that we are spending.

It is interesting that in the 1980-81 estimates, the ministry spent roughly $157 million, and this year we are spending $156 million, a decrease of around $1 million, which indicates the budget is going down, rather than up.

What also concerns me is this old shell game that we play in this Legislature, at which the government has got so adroit. It appears to me, quite frankly, that they use the Ministry of Northern Affairs as sort of the guinea pig in shuffling government funds around. They took that little example they have been so successful with and built it up into the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, and said, "My God, it worked in northern Ontario through Northern Affairs; we might as well snow the whole province with it."

If one looks at the budget of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, I warrant to this day that three quarters of it comes from other ministries or is money that is in other ministries' budgets and then flows through to Northern Affairs. For instance, Northern Affairs says to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications: "Build some roads over here. You design them. You tell us what the alignment is, and we will give you the money back."

It is a shell game. It is a real shell game, because we have these two shells.

Mr. Laughren: Shills.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Well, we have more than two shills. We have about 27 of them.

We have this little game: Now you see it, now you don't, because most of this ministry's budget came out of other operating ministries.

Mr. Laughren: Can you see Leo under a shell?

Mr. Wildman: Come on, Leo, come out of your shell.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Under Sunoco, not Shell.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He looks like a mushroom; so maybe he should be under something else.

We have heard this criticism before, and I suppose it is still as valid as it was at the beginning. In fact, what we have done is we have reduced the budget and the amount of money that was available to the Ministry of Northern Affairs or to the programs for the people in northern Ontario. We took them out of the operating ministries, put them in Northern Affairs; then we hired a bunch of civil servants to look after or pass on the examples and programs that had already been in effect.

3:50 p.m.

The shell game cannot go on, because we are not getting value for money out of this proposition. I hope, by the way, the minister will discuss the change in his northern economic development budget and his community services development budget. There has been a fundamental shift there, and we do not know whether the program has been absorbed into the northern economic development situation or whether the northern community services development has been downplayed to the extent it has.

The minister was proud of the results of what he has done in the last year. For his information, I recommend that he read the criticisms and comments of the Provincial Auditor which he will find on page 49 of the auditor's annual report in regard to the administration of Northern Affairs and the fact that it was well over budget on a number of projects.

It does not indicate to me or anybody reading it that there is a real commitment in that ministry to efficiency in government and getting value for the money and dollars spent. Three projects are outlined that went way over budget. Of course, what that means is there is no money available for other projects in this coming year, such as the water system in Fort Frances which is badly in need of assistance and which the minister, I trust, will respond to a little later on.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Schreiber beat you out.

Mr. Stokes: We know where the priorities are.

Mr. Laughren: It's that watershed in Hudson.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You guys are not going to gang up on me, are you?

I have a number of items here, but I also want to talk about where I see the lack of northern input into the policies of the province. The minister has talked about these matters, but I find it difficult to believe him or agree with him when I see so few results. I do not see any results in the diversification of the northern economy. We are still basically hewers of wood and carriers of water.

I do not see any improvement in what is going on in the conservation of our resources, and by that I mean their wise use in northern Ontario. To this day I still see us giving away our natural resources of fish and game to nonresidents who can come up here to hunt and fish. Tourism probably is our second largest dollar earner, although not our biggest employer, in northern Ontario. We are trying to stimulate the tourism component of our economy and yet, at the same time, the government allows these people what in effect is a free ride.

The other thing that really concerns me is the opportunity we have had in northern Ontario which the minister has let go. He let it go only a week ago. I want to congratulate the Minister of Northern Affairs and the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) for what I consider to be a good symposium on peat resources held in Thunder Bay less than two weeks ago.

I must say I was not happy with the summing up by a Ministry of Natural Resources person who was less than optimistic that anything was going to happen. He has been around this government much longer than I have, and maybe he knows better than I do that there is not going to be any stimulus and that there is not going to be any real government involvement in the development of alternative energy resources, in particular peat, in this province.

The minister and others have said that if we used all the peat in Ontario there is a possibility, according to the study, that those resources would replace something like 72 billion barrels of oil. That boggles one's mind. I do not think anyone here can even grasp what that means. The report suggested that would involve using almost all the peat in this province.

But even if we started to develop that resource on a much smaller scale, the possibilities of producing gas from peat, of producing briquettes and other enterprises, could be phenomenal. It is a resource that is indigenous to northern Ontario particularly. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, as you are undoubtedly aware, Ontario alone, after Russia, probably has the second largest peat resources in the world.

We have a resource that we could develop in northern Ontario particularly, but for the benefit of the province. Yet the government is putting little or nothing in the way of resources towards this. I understand there is some agreement, perhaps under the northern Ontario resources transportation agreement with the federal government, that $50 million may be available if somebody comes up and says, "We have a program." That was hinted at.

But I believe there is an opportunity here that has wide-ranging consequences for a lot of communities in which they could diversify their base. If they were to use this peat, it would also give rise to intensive farming in northern Ontario after the peat resource has been used up. Yet what do we hear from the Minister of Northern Affairs? He hardly referred to it in some 78 or 80 pages, when this is a golden opportunity, a fantastic opportunity, to do something in northern Ontario.

We have had the peat symposium. By the sound of it, that is the end of government involvement.

Mr. Laughren: Do you think the government should be involved in this?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Yes, I do.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If the member had been here on Friday, he would have heard me comment on peat.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Unfortunately, I was meeting with the hog producers and the camp owners. I could talk to the members about that for about 10 minutes if they would like to hear about the hog producers' problem.

What is the minister doing about the hog producers in northern Ontario? Now that it has been mentioned, I will tell the minister what their problem is. They are not being dealt with by the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board; they are not in it because of provincial legislation and, if we get supply management of hogs in this province, they are going to be left out of it.

So I say to the minister, who comes from northern Ontario and who is responsible for northern agriculture, I will send him a letter, as well as one to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson). I hope we can do something for these people.

As a matter of fact, I am sure the minister will get involved in this one, because he has a couple of hog producers around Dryden. One always gets the minister's attention when the problem is also in his own backyard. However, he is not a producer any more.

Mr. Chairman, since we are talking briefly about agriculture, the recent study of energy in the agricultural field, a very glossy production that was tabled in this House just a week ago, also stated very clearly that northern agriculture should be given a big boost and that we could expand northern agriculture.

The minister has said very little about northern agriculture, certainly in his opening remarks, and we hear very little coming from his ministry in this regard. I say there is a fantastic potential again in northern Ontario, particularly in the Rainy River area, somewhat around Dryden and certainly in northeastern Ontario, for a much more diversified, dynamic and stable agricultural community.

I do not want to suggest that all is "want, want, want" and that we are demanding a whole list of things. What the people of northern Ontario are looking for is some direction and guidance and assistance, but the minister says in his remarks that basically they would rather do things themselves.

4 p.m.

The world has changed considerably. If we are going to put up a peat demonstration plant or something like that, the technology to do it -- leaving aside the question of the dollars -- is much more complex than it might well have been a few years ago. There has to be a direction provided by this ministry, and there has to be an overall development plan to diversify the economy, as I said at the outset. We have several examples, of agriculture, peat, lignite and a whole number of things, where development can take place if we can get some direction from the government and the ministry in these matters.

The minister is quite proud of coming from northern Ontario and being the Minister of Northern Affairs. I wonder how he squares that with the fact that at the Ontario North Now pavilion at Ontario Place -- maybe the minister can correct me if I am wrong -- very little recruiting was done this year for people or students from northern Ontario to work at the pavilion. As I understand it, most of the people hired to work there this summer came from southern Ontario. Here again we have the classic problem of something concerning northern Ontario where someone from southern Ontario is getting the job. That seems to be the fundamental wheel that keeps turning, in that we have the resources but somebody else is getting the benefit of them.

I also have some things to talk about in terms of northern transportation, community services and so on, but I think I will wait until we get to the particular votes to discuss some of the matters in detail. As I said before, I hope the minister will have his officials ready with an understanding of how this money breaks down and what programs it is in. I particularly want to go over again -- I say this so they will be prepared to understand -- what the analysis and planning group that spends almost $1 million is actually doing.

There is an opportunity here that we have still not grasped in terms of this ministry. We are often too busy doing a public relations job, and the minister has become an expert at that; but we are not grappling with the really hard problems facing northern Ontario in terms of the economy and job opportunities we are going to see. I hope we will spend some time dealing with that matter in the estimates.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, the first thing I want to do in dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs is to add to those sentiments expressed by the minister and the member for Rainy River concerning the pending retirement of the deputy minister, Arthur Herridge.

I had the pleasure of working closely with Art almost since I first came down here 14 years ago, and he served with dedication and distinction wherever he was called upon. I think it is fair to say that this ministry has been particularly well served in having the calibre of personnel in the position of deputy minister, first of all by Tom Campbell, who was a northerner hailing from Chapleau, and then by his successor, Art Herridge.

Regarding the emphasis that has been placed on the north and its problems, I want to quote something said by the minister in his opening remarks, that Mr. Herridge was trying to bring government a little closer to the people in the north to overcome the feeling of alienation many residents of the north have experienced because of the geography and the great distances to be spanned and the lack of accessibility to many government programs and to the personnel responsible for carrying out those programs. When I hear a deputy minister saying that, I realize that he at least knows what the mandate is, recognizes what the problems are and to a large extent has dedicated himself to bridging that gap between the bureaucracy down here and the north itself.

I can remember one occasion, when Mr. Herridge was serving in another capacity, on which I had the pleasure of addressing the faculty of forestry at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay. I was particularly irate at the inability of some civil servants down here to come to grips with problems relating specifically to forestry. Perhaps I spoke a little unkindly on that occasion, but I did so deliberately and I make no apology for it.

I said, "The people in the ministry who are responsible for forestry, some of the people in industry who are responsible for forestry and certainly people in the academic community would do just fine if the bureaucrats and the mandarins down here at Queen's Park would only leave them alone."

I know Mr. Herridge took umbrage at that comment. He came right over and said, "I hope you did not put me in that category." I do not know whether I said, "Well, Arthur, if the cap fits, wear it." All I know is that since he has moved to the Ministry of Northern Affairs that has not been the case, if it ever was.

So I want to join with the minister and the member for Rainy River in wishing Arthur well in his new activities. I happen to know what they are, and I say to you, Arthur, that it is like jumping from the frying pan into the fire, because if there is a segment of industrial enterprise in northern Ontario that is more of a hot seat than the one you are going to, I do not know what it is. I do not know that you are going to be able to solve the problems of the sawmill industry: all I know is that from my perspective it will be the most onerous challenge you have ever accepted.

I am sure the minister is well aware of the problems facing the sawmill industry in the area of Hearst, and they have nothing to do with the economic slowdown and the lack of markets for lumber at this time associated with the slowdown in housing construction that has been caused, in large measure, by high interest rates. But I can see a real crisis coming in that segment of the forest industry in northern Ontario if we do not get a handle on it; this is something my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) will be discussing with the Minister of Natural Resources a little later this week.

What has happened to the economy of Atikokan because of the closure of those two mines, which the member for Rainy River has spoken about, will pale next to the results of inadequate sawlog supplies to a lot of communities like Chapleau, Hearst and Dubreuilville. To a large extent, even the city of Thunder Bay is going to feel the pinch because of integration in the forest industry.

4:10 p.m.

There are the major licence holders, such as Great Lakes, Abitibi and Kimberly-Clark, that have complete vertical integration. They have complete utilization of the entire tree. Whether it be for sawlogs, veneer, pulp and paper or particle board, they are using the entire resource to a much greater extent than ever before. Their ability to share with others, particularly the small sawmill operators, is becoming much more unlikely as time passes.

That is why I think this ministry has to address itself to those very basic and fundamental questions. The minister took several pages of his opening comments to remind us that this ministry is the facilitator; it is the one ministry that co-ordinates the activities of all of the ministries that have any reason for being in northern Ontario.

If we are going to get a handle on economic development to improve the opportunity for secondary and tertiary industries based on the resources that we have in such abundance, this minister is going to have to prevail upon his cabinet colleagues, beginning with the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Ramsay) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope).

It should not be any revelation to the present Minister of Northern Affairs: he was there. I hope I am not being too unkind, but I think it is as a result of the rose-coloured glasses and the blinders that this minister had on when he was the Minister of Natural Resources that a lot of these problems still persist in northern Ontario at the present time. They are much more acute than ever before; that is why I think this ministry and this minister has a double responsibility, because the minister knows what the problems are. He has been there.

We are not going to be able to preserve the quality of life as it exists today, or even build upon it, unless in a very real sense one of the senior cabinet ministers impresses upon his colleagues the need to build upon the traditional economic base. This has to be done if we ever hope to aspire to the kind of economic development, the kind of diversification, an industrial strategy for the north that will be meaningful, productive and long-lasting. That will not happen unless this minister and this ministry play a very key and a very pivotal role in co-ordinating that kind of planning that will bring northern Ontario into the mainstream of Ontario and this country in a social and an economic sense.

I want to pay tribute to the minister and those who are responsible for taking the initiative to provide infrastructure funding in selected areas of the north where the line ministries and their programs are not specifically tailor-made to meet the special and unique problems of providing such basic and fundamental services as water and sewers in many northern communities.

For many years, the line ministry, such as the Ministry of the Environment, has designed programs that in general terms meet most of the needs for most of the communities in Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: Here comes the help. You need it.

Mr. Stokes: However, the minister knows -- and if the member for Nickel Belt cares to listen, I am sure he knows too -- there are many instances where, because of rock conditions, climatic conditions or a lack of an industrial tax base, it is impossible for many northern communities to aspire to the kind of infrastructure services that many people in southern Ontario take for granted.

This is not to denigrate some of the excellent programs under the auspices of the Ministry of the Environment; but, without additional assistance and funding from the Ministry of Northern Affairs, a good many of the projects we have benefited from in northern Ontario would not have been possible.

I also want to pay tribute to this ministry for its initiatives in the health field. Notwithstanding the fact that we have a health delivery system in excess of $6 billion in this province, any northern member representing the part of the province lying north of the French River will tell this House that many of those systems and programs are not ideally suited to serve the special and unique needs of people living in remote northern communities.

We appreciate that one cannot have a sophisticated hospital with backup medical and paramedical personnel in every small community or hamlet in northern Ontario. To bridge that gap, the ministry has embarked upon a program of medevac or air ambulance service. This is something I advocated in one of my first speeches here. While I do not presume to take all the credit for it, if one keeps banging away for long enough at something that is useful and worthwhile, it will come about. The ministry is to be commended for the pivotal role it played in the establishment of that program.

I want to refer the minister to an article that appeared in the Thunder Bay Times-News on Wednesday, November 4, 1981, where Dr. Psutka, who is responsible for that program, was explaining it to people in northwestern Ontario. He sees all sorts of room for improvement in the Ontario way.

I do not want to belabour it or to be critical of something that has been under way for the only three or four months. It has had its growing pains, and I am not going to suggest it is not working well. Under the circumstances, I think it is working extremely well. This is the kind of role that is admirably suited to the mandate of this particular minister and ministry.

4:20 p.m.

I also hope the minister will get involved in telemedicine. I think there are some funds in this ministry for that. There is a great potential for bringing small northern communities, hospitals and doctors practising in the north in much closer contact with specialists here in the south by using the telemedicine technology perfected over the last few years. That seems to have hit a snag for some reason or another. I cannot seem to get my finger on the pulse of that. I do not know whether it is another case of the mandarins and the bureaucrats down here getting their hands on it and things grinding to a halt for no apparent reason.

I have talked to Dr. Dyer about this on numerous occasions. He assured me this program was well in hand and things were going along apace. Lo and behold, I got an inquiry from a doctor responsible for the implementation of the telemedicine program, coming down on a plane some two weeks ago, who said: "I am responsible for administering the program and getting it on the rails and keeping it there, particularly for those hospitals along the north shore of Lake Superior and Manitouwadge and Geraldton. Would you please find out whatever became of the telemedicine program?"

Everybody was extolling the virtues of that, including myself, but we just cannot seem to get a handle on it. I do not know whether the minister or anyone in the gallery can tell me so I can send that information back. This is another way we can break the log jam or cut the red tape. If we cannot depend on this ministry to do it, who are we going to turn to?

The member for Rainy River is not here now. He is probably out listening to me on the squawk box while he is bumming a cigarette from somebody. He was very critical of this ministry for not coming up with an overall strategy for development. I share that criticism to some extent.

Let me go back and refresh the minister's memory about the way we used to do things in the north under the Treasury ministry when it was responsible for an economic development strategy for the entire province. At that time we had 10 regional economic councils throughout the province. Very few of them worked, simply because they did not have a proper focus, probably because they were not aware of their mandate or perhaps in some instances simply because the economy was working well, particularly down along the Golden Horseshoe 10 or 15 years ago. There was not too much of a meaningful part for those development councils to play at that time.

The minister will well remember the Northwestern Ontario Development Council was working better than any other in the province. Members will remember people like Lachie Philips, who was the general manager of that. They know the part played in that economic development council by some key people in industry and in government, both at the provincial level and even at the municipal level. That was working well; but ministers like Charles MacNaughton, for some strange and crazy reason that was never explained to us at that time, disbanded it. There may have been some real justification for doing that in areas where it did not count too much. But it counted for a lot in northwestern Ontario.

Members can remember they replaced that with a Design for Development. They developed the Toronto-centred region Design for Development. It was said on that occasion that one of the justifications for having a Design for Development for the Toronto-centred region was that they would be in a position to accept the raw materials coming from northern Ontario, whether they be mineral wealth or forestry wealth, which would be shipped down to Toronto for processing to serve the midwestern United States market. We know how well that particular concept sat with the people in northern Ontario, the people responsible for creating that wealth in the first place. That concept went over like a lead balloon and rightfully so.

They came up with a Design for Development for northwestern Ontario, and they outlined a variety of strategies where we would have greater employment in the woods division, we would have greater employment in the mining sector and we would have greater opportunities in the tourist section. The minister, I believe, remembers that well.

When the minister responds to these opening remarks, I want him to point out any sector where this Design for Development, so-called, has assisted the economy of northwestern Ontario one jot. If we look at the statistics of those employed in the woodlands industry, we see that automation and the capital-intensive nature of those operations has resulted in a reduction in the number of jobs in the forest industry. We also have had a reduction in the number of jobs in the mining industry.

I do not know what the figures are in the tourist industry, but we all know that the jobs are seasonal; and you really cannot have a meaningful economic base on something as seasonal as the tourist industry. That is not to suggest that it is not important in the overall scheme of things. But you cannot build communities around the tourist industry unless you are looking at spending $25 million or $30 million to satisfy the needs of a little hamlet like Minaki. That is fine for Minaki, if you are prepared to put in the capital required to provide 100 jobs. But if you want to transfer that concept to every small town, hamlet or community in the north, there is just not enough money to go around; so that is not a viable alternative.

If we are ever going to develop a strategy for development of the north, it is going to have to be because this minister and this ministry are committed to being in the vanguard and doing the co-ordination, whether it is with the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, the Minister of Natural Resources or the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman).

4:30 p.m.

I wonder how often this minister takes a step back with the key people in his ministry, like Mr. Herridge, Mr. Morpurgo, Mr. Charlton and Mr. Aiken, when he is not going over to Greenland, Ireland or Scandinavia -- perhaps it would be a good idea if he did go over there and took a step back -- and ask: "What is the future? What do we see as the key and pivotal role for a ministry like the Ministry of Northern Affairs?"

If he is not going to take a step back and ask himself these very basic questions, I am sure that neither the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) nor any of his other cabinet colleagues is going to ask him those questions. How are we going to attract the number of people to northern Ontario that make almost any endeavour viable? Whenever we embark on a program or project, among the first questions we have to ask ourselves are: "Why are we doing this? Will it work? Will somebody benefit? How much is it going to cost us?"

I see the Minister of Education looking up at the clock. I think we should ask ourselves, Mr. Chairman, why we are closing a high school where we have had an existing community since the year 1885.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is because we have the same problem in northern Ontario as we have in southern Ontario.

Mr. Wildman: Except you have added distances up there too.

Mr. Stokes: In 1969 and 1970, when the current Premier (Mr. Davis) was Minister of Education, he brought a bill into this House, Bill 44, which consolidated schools into district school boards throughout Ontario.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Consolidation of school boards.

Mr. Stokes: That is right. He said this was to improve the equality of educational opportunity and it was designed to better things, not to make them worse. Now we have the Ontario Educational Communications Authority, we have the correspondence branch of the Ministry of Education, we have Telidon --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: And the Ministry of Education is involved directly.

Mr. Stokes: Yes. And she, like Pontius Pilate, is washing her hands of it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not. It happens to be a local board decision.

Mr. Stokes: That is what I am saying. And the only reason they are making the decision to close the school is that she will not change the formula to make it possible to keep that school open.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have already changed that. They have got an additional $600,000 this year.

Mr. Stokes: They are still going to close the school. I am glad I finally got the honourable minister's attention.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have written the member four letters.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Stokes: I still have not got the letters, believe me.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Well, I have signed them. Where did they go?

Mr. Stokes: I wrote the minister a letter six or eight weeks ago.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Let us end the dialogue back and forth. There will be an opportunity for discussion.

Mr. Stokes: Come on, we are in committee.

The Deputy Chairman: That is right.

Mr. Stokes: Just calm down. Lean back and enjoy it.

The Deputy Chairman: Well, the chair is in order. You have the floor.

Mr. Stokes: We are talking about the north, and this is the way we deal with things in the north.

The Deputy Chairman: Is that right? Well, you are in the south.

Mr. Stokes: That was an aside, Mr. Chairman. Let us get back to the Ministry of Northern Affairs now that the Minister of Education is going to provide sufficient funding to keep our high schools open.

In line with what I was saying about economic development and the responsibility of this ministry to act in an advocacy role, I think the minister and his ministry should play a more active part in the decisions taken by the Northern Ontario Development Corporation. The minister knows the criteria that are used. I will not call them mandarins and bureaucrats. Some of them happen to live in the north, as you well know -- the board of directors. However, the criteria used by the people down here when looking at a given situation quite often almost boggles the mind.

They say: "We think you have an excellent concept for economic development and for job creation. It provides a service, but it does not meet the criteria." That is for reasons unknown to me or to the applicant. I am sure the minister can point to a good many of them. He knows of a recent one which he said his ministry would have a look at. It had to do with the establishment of an FM radio broadcasting station along the north shore of Lake Superior. If one does not drive the northern highways, one really does not appreciate how important such a communication facility is to people. We have these little radio repeater stations that are affiliates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which have a range of about 10 miles.

If I leave my home town I can get it for about 10 miles. It fades out. I wait and drive another 40 miles. When I get within five or 10 miles of Nipigon I can pick it up again. It does not matter where one travels in northern Ontario. There is no local station one can get from his automobile. There is no local station one can get if one is any more than five or 10 miles away from a community that has one of those repeater stations.

We had an enterprising young gentleman from Marathon who spent a lot of his own money to see whether there was a market and whether it met with general approval. Everybody was agreed it was a useful thing to do. When Thunder Bay Electronics came to this government and asked for $666,000 for the rebroadcasting of CTV out of Thunder Bay, at that time 50 per cent of anything like that was forgivable. That worked and it worked well for anybody who got it.

But when we asked for a modest amount of money for an FM station that would serve communities such as White River, Manitouwadge, Heron Bay, Marathon, Schreiber, Terrace Bay, Geraldton, Longlac, Caramat and Hillsport we heard, "It is a good idea but we do not think it is a viable operation."

This government calls itself the champion of free enterprise. We can hand out hundreds of millions of dollars to the pulp and paper industry. We can hand out hundreds of millions of dollars to buy a piece of the action in Suncor, but when we get somebody who has a well developed plan and all they need is a little bit of help, they say "Sorry, it doesn't meet our criteria."

4:40 p.m.

I am convinced this will work. I have faith in the guy and you have to have faith in small entrepreneurs who come up with technical knowhow, the imagination, the drive and the initiative to get something done. When he went to the Northern Ontario Development Corporation they said: "Sorry, it doesn't meet with our criteria." I am not blaming your ministry because I know your ministry went to bat for us, but it still didn't turn the tide.

That is why I am suggesting that just maybe we should be looking at NODC as an emanation of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, not the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. That is how much confidence I have in the ability of this ministry to be much more sensitive to the needs of the people in the north and take a chance once in a while.

Mr. T. P. Reid: And how little you have in the ministry of tourism.

Mr. Stokes: That is right. I didn't want to say anything when he wasn't here, but now that I have his attention, I'm not going to be a bit backward about saying something when he is here. I want to remind the member for Rainy River that we have another program where entrepreneurs must go before approaching NODC for funding. It is call the Federal Business Development Bank.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Boo.

Mr. Stokes: I am glad to hear you agree with me because the last time I heard about them they were foreclosing on somebody who ran into hard times because he couldn't retire the capital and his interest was at 26 per cent. This is a federal government agency, asking somebody trying to get started in a worthwhile enterprise in northern Ontario to pay a rate of 26 per cent.

The member for Rainy River doesn't have to respond but in terms of an economic strategy for northern Ontario, where is the federal government in all of this? We have wall-to-wall Liberals in all of northern Ontario at the federal level. We don't see anything emanating from any of the programs in Ottawa that serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Haggerty: Federal grants given to the pulp and paper industry in Ontario.

Mr. Stokes: We are losing jobs as a result of that. I have already spoken to that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is the minister. That is what he tells them we need. That is what Leo tells them we need.

Mr. Stokes: We are losing jobs. I have already covered that. I am saying if there is a collective and a joint responsibility in northern Ontario, I think the federal Liberals as well as the provincial Conservatives must share the responsibility for getting northern Ontario --

Mr. T. P. Reid: They are in bed together often enough. I don't know why they don't talk to each other.

Mr. Wildman: What do you mean? The federal Liberals gave us Via Rail cutbacks.

Mr. Stokes: All I am saying is I want to put it in perspective. You have the northern Ontario rural development agreement program there. I put a couple of ideas in. I have had no response. I am told there are several programs that are before you people now, you are assessing them and hopefully something will come of them. You have the Department of Regional Economic Expansion Ontario program where we are building roads to resources in the north, to provide better access for utilization of our wood products, to provide better access to all of the resources we have in abundance. But the bottom line is that we are losing jobs in the forest industry and we are losing jobs in the mining industry.

The Design for Development that was going to be the set piece for development in northernwestern Ontario didn't work. I challenge the minister to pull anything out of that Design for Development in 1970 or 1971 and to point to it with pride. That is not to take away from what this ministry is doing in a narrow and confined sense. All I am saying is there is a real opportunity for this minister and this ministry to fill that void, to be the catalyst, to take the bull by the horns or take the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) by the ears and tell him a few things about economic life in northern Ontario.

I want to speak about the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment, a commission set up four years ago under the chairmanship -- or the commissionership -- of Justice Patrick Hartt. He stayed there for two years and for reasons better known to himself than anybody else decided he did not want to do that any more and resigned. The Minister of Northern Affairs, I think -- he can correct me if I am wrong -- had to find a replacement. He nominated a northerner, who has occupied that position for something in excess of two years.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Are you sure he didn't resign too and didn't tell anybody?

Mr. Stokes: I will leave that for the member for Rainy River.

We do know this commission has been in existence for more than four years. It was set up to address itself generally to the environmental concerns of people in northern Ontario under the auspices of the Ministry of the Environment. It was set up because there was a good deal of dialogue -- some pro and some con -- as to whether this government should put the last 19,000 square miles of boreal forest into the hands of Reed Paper, as it was at that time. It was a very emotional issue. There were a lot of people who said, "Sure, just give it to them and let them carry on in the way they have been used to -- exploiting the boreal forest" and others who said: "They should draw back since this is the last 19,000 miles that is not under license to some company. It is a very special kind of ecology up there, sometimes very fragile. Anywhere from 40 per cent to 60 per cent of the timber values are on very shallow soil. We should step back and take a look at what values are there before we decide how we are going to dispose of that." That was the scenario under which the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment was set up.

Four years later, under two commissioners, we have spent close to $6 million. It has now become the most expensive royal commission ever set up by this government. I do not have to tell the ministry, but I am saying for the benefit of all the members who are in this House, we have people being fired from that commission and we have people quitting that commission because it has lost its focus.

4:50 p.m.

We all know what the terms of reference were. To quote one person who either was just relieved of her responsibilities or quit voluntarily -- I do not know; it was never made quite clear to me -- she says, "The commission is suffering from bureaucratic paralysis." She said, "The reluctance of the commission to start public participation after four years has more to do with bureaucratic paranoia that expresses contempt for the practical common sense of real knowledge of ordinary people."

She said the commission was putting the cart before the horse by concentrating solely on research before involving the public of the north in the decision-making process.

I have a whole file of sins of omission and comission by the commission on the northern environment and I am not going to bore the committee or members of this House with it. This minister, more than any other in government, has a responsibility to get that operation back on the rails again. It is simply not working. We have too much money invested in that process to let it go down the drain. I do not know whether anything is retrievable with the present personnel there. That is something the minister and his cabinet colleagues are going to have to do a lot of soul searching on.

I think I express the sentiments of everybody in northern Ontario when I say the establishment of that commission and the kind of funding it has made available to a variety of groups and individuals who had some input into this have built up the hopes and aspirations of far too many people in northern Ontario to just let the thing die. Neither should we direct the present commissioner to come in with a fast, pat kind of report that regurgitates everything we know about the north. A survey of a survey of a survey, or a study of a study of a study -- those people up there have reports and research documents coming out of their ears.

The present commissioner said it took him more than a year just to wade through what Justice Patrick Hartt had collected before him. He is engaged in the same exercise. If you put every member of this Legislature in a room and said, "Now let us go over all of these documents they have amassed over the past four years," we would spend the next year doing it ourselves. This commission has lost its focus. It has lost sight of its original mandate. I think this minister more than any other has a responsibility to get that operation back on the rails again.

I do not want to be overly dramatic about it. I know this minister feels he and his government have a tiger by the tail. I do not think it is malicious. One cannot afford to be malicious and uncaring about an exercise of this significance and this magnitude. We have got too much money invested in the process to let it die. I do not think it can be salvaged by existing personnel. I have offered some alternatives to the minister privately about how we can get out of the dilemma and get the thing back on the rails, but he has not chosen to accept this. The people of the north, whether they be from Hudson, Pickle Lake or Fort Severn, expected a lot from this commission and they deserve a heck of a lot more than they are getting.

I want to get on to the Via Rail cutbacks very briefly. I know the minister saw for himself the effects of the Via Rail cutbacks particularly in those areas of northern Ontario where there isn't an alternative, where there are no road systems and no access by plane. I do not know how many people the minister has in his riding but there are places like Fulton, Mud River, Collins and Allen Water along the north line that are going to be completely isolated. All they have is the trains, the Supercontinental that is due to come off -- when, Bud; the 16th? They are going to have a rail dayliner two or three days a week.

That is how much our federal government and our federal Department of Transport think about the people who live in those communities and who keep the lifelines open. Those people are there because the Canadian National Railway runs through their community. They are there primarily to maintain the right of way. The federal government allowed our two common carriers, the Canadian National Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, to divest themselves of any responsibility for passenger traffic in this country. They set up another arm's length emanation called Via Rail. It took the heat off the two common carriers that were responsible for establishing those communities in the first place, and now the heat is on Via Rail.

You know how cavalier, callous and uncaring Jean-Luc Pepin has been. Talk about arrogance. Everybody used to say Trudeau was one of the most arrogant people on the political scene in Canada. He is a real marshmallow compared with Pepin. Pepin just does not listen to anybody. I do not know what this minister's alternative is to the actions taken by Mr. Pepin in eliminating a lot of these lines. I have sent my own alternative suggestion to Pepin and I received a one sentence acknowledgement that he was looking into it and he would get back to me. The minister has a copy of that. What I am saying to Pepin is, "If you think it is in the national interest to cut out all these unprofitable lines, particularly in areas where there is no alternative, you, as the government of Canada, have a responsibility to provide an alternative for those people."

I advocated the building of a highway from Nakina over to Savant Lake paralleling the north line of the Canadian National Railway that would serve those communities abandoned by Via Rail.

5 p.m.

You would open up opportunities for tourism. You would assist the prime licence holders for whom roads are being built anyway through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion agreement, whether it is Kimberly-Clark, Abitibi, Domtar or Great Lakes Forest Products, you are helping them to build roads anyway. We are going to have roads in the north coming out of our ears and running north and south serving a single-use purpose. There is nothing to serve people in a ribbon fashion to open up the north. Collectively as taxpayers, under the auspices of the federal and provincial governments, we are spending that money now. I am sure you and I and somebody at the federal level and somebody representing those major licence holders could come up in two hours with a scheme, an alternative, to this unthinking action of the federal government, something that would serve people for a change while helping the corporate sector and the tourist industry.

I have not had a peep from you on it. I sent a copy to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), and I have not heard a peep from him. When the TransCanada Highway was built it was not built because the 10 provinces on mainland Canada decided unilaterally or without any planning it was a good thing to have a Trans-Canada Highway. There was some co-ordination. Until the late 1950s or early 1960s, 50 per cent of the cost of construction of the TransCanada Highway was accepted as a federal responsibility. If it is justifiable for the federal Department of Transport to curtail this service it has a moral obligation to provide an alternative.

This ministry has a responsibility for driving that point home to the federal authorities. I cannot do it alone. If you have a sincere and genuine interest and concern for people living in northern Ontario, unless you can come up with a better plan, you should be supporting the one I put forth. I have not heard a peep from either of you. That is the role I see for this minister and this ministry.

I want to speak briefly about the peat potential. I have heard we have anywhere from 26 billion barrels, to 42 billion barrels, to 72 billion barrels oil equivalency in peat indigenous to this province south of the frost line. I am not going to argue about the figures. Anybody who knows anything about the resource will tell you it is there, it is substantial and we should be using it. I could give a two- or three-hour speech based on what I learned at the symposium and what I read about it prior to the symposium, and the kind of studies I have done on it since.

I have a proposal in now to Ontario Hydro where Peat Resources of Ontario have identified a bog that is capable of exploitation at this time. The minister knows there is technology, by the use of a dual fuel motor, to use peat that has been gasified in order to propel a motor that will generate electricity.

I have told the minister about a pilot project undertaken by Quebec Hydro on Anticosti Island that is being co-ordinated at the present time. A similar project is about to get under way in northern Saskatchewan at Buffalo Narrows.

I have suggested a town like Armstrong. It does not have to be Armstrong. It just so happens I know more about Armstrong and the resources on its doorstep. I know they are paying 40.5 cents per kilowatt hour for power generated by diesel generators and operated by Ontario Hydro.

There is an alternative resource there. There is a demonstrated need for a cheaper way of generating electricity. I hope we have a group in Ontario Hydro that knows as much about these things and the technology as anybody else. I know we have a program under the auspices of the federal and the provincial governments for energy conservation, for an alternative to oil and gas.

It is specifically designed to foster development and demonstration models by utilizing something unconventional. We would have the equivalent of billions of barrels of fuel oil by the utilization of our peat resources. They are making tremendous strides in Russia, Finland and Ireland, where they have been using this for decades. For some strange reason we, as a province which has that resource in such abundance, think it is useful to spend $650 million to acquire a 25 per cent interest in a company like Suncor.

I am all for getting a piece of the action, getting a window on the industry, but the thing is we could use even a fraction of that $650 million to become active in the utilization of peat, an indigenous resource. It is not something in the high Arctic. It is not in Australia or out in Hibernia on the east coast. It is not in Alberta or up in the Mackenzie delta. It is right here.

What are we doing? We are spending $650 million on Suncor. I do not know what Suncor is going to do with the money. I am not saying we may not, at some time in the future, get a good economic return. It is probably a good business deal. I do not know. I assume it is. If the analysis done by those whiz kids on Bay Street is accurate it is probably not a bad investment, but it does not do anything for developing resources indigenous to Ontario. That, Mr. Minister, is what you have to convince your cabinet colleagues of.

In the process, you might even look into the technology available for the gasification of that and the possibility of feeding it into the trans-Canada pipeline. Somebody in your ministry told me; let me think, what is his name?

5:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Hans vonCube?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, talk to him about it. He sees a practical application for using those resources within an economic distance of the trans-Canada pipeline and feeding that right into the line. You are shipping everything else down to southern Ontario. Here is another opportunity to ship an indigenous resource down to southern Ontario after we have satisfied our needs in the north.

The potential is just so great and it really concerns me to see the world passing us by. You see what other jurisdictions are doing with regard to the utilization of peat and you are spending $650 million on Suncor. You talk about the tremendous wealth of peat that we have. Look at this document. It is an evaluation of potential. You went to great lengths to tell us about it. We know about it. What are you going to do about it? That is what I want to know.

While you are at it, if you ever get serious about development of peat; if you ever get serious about the forest management agreements you see being signed by companies like Great Lakes, Abitibi, and E. B. Eddy; if you want to do something for our first citizens, whether it be in the utilization of peat, these forest management agreements, or whether it be in the looping of trans-Canada pipelines -- it is happening in your area, it is happening in my area -- whether it is the development of the polar gas line where the Ontario Energy Corporation has a piece of the action, you should build an affirmative action program into all of those contracts.

Another area I want to get into is norOntair. I do not suppose you have anybody here. I think it is an excellent program as far as it goes. I notice the per-passenger deficit has been reduced from $75 per passenger when it started 10 years ago to $6 per passenger. I think it is money well spent because if somebody gets on the TTC or somebody gets on the GO train or somebody gets on an airplane, we are subsidizing them in some way. I do not know of any form of public transit, whether it is operated privately or publicly, that actually pays for itself without some kind of subsidy. One can look at Greyhound Bus Lines and say they don't get a subsidy. But they run on our roads and if they had to supply their own right of way I would like to see how they could.

All I am saying is that it does not matter what we do by way of public transportation, we have to subsidize. I think it is legitimate that norOntair gets the same thing. I am going to get back to the minister and say why do we not subsidize the people who are disadvantaged to the greatest degree because of lack of alternative transportation opportunities? He knows who I am talking about.

There are no roads north of Red Lake, north of Moosonee, north of Pickle Lake, and north of Nakina. The minister knows, or perhaps he does not know -- well I am sure he knows -- even though it does not cost him to fly through the north I know what it costs for anybody else. He should know what those tariffs are. I could quote them chapter and verse but I am not going to bore the committee or the minister with them.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Go ahead. They are too damned expensive.

Mr. Stokes: I took a trip on norOntair from Terrace Bay to Sault Ste. Marie. If you want to take the norOntair flight from there, you do not go directly from Terrace Bay to Sault Ste. Marie; you go from Terrace Bay straight north to Geraldton, pick up some passengers there and you go over to Hornepayne, then down to Wawa and then to Sault Ste. Marie.

For that beautiful scenic tour -- it was a beautiful trip in a Twin Otter, a beautiful day and I got an opportunity see those miles and miles of clearcut --

Mr. Kerrio: You could land anywhere.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, all of those prime licence holders. One could even tell whether it was cut in the wintertime or in the summertime by the length of the stumps on all of these. Tremendous. But it was a beautiful trip. It cost me $44. If one went to the north and said to some private carrier, "I would like to charter an aircraft for the next couple of hours," you would be lucky if you got it for $500. We charge ourselves $44.

But if the minister compares that with what it costs somebody flying north out of Red Lake or north out of Sioux Lookout or Pickle Lake or Nakina or Moosonee and if one goes 90 or 100 miles, he will pay double or triple what it costs to take that little junket I took, courtesy of norOntair and their Twin Otter.

The minister knows that. I think that is the way to go with regard to providing alternative transportation facilities for people in the north. But he ignores completely the people who are the most disadvantaged.

I have written to the minister about it and he says, "It is a very complicated thing because of the sparse population. It does not pay us to run a daily charter into Sandy Lake" -- in his riding -- "or into Big Trout Lake or Fort Hope" -- in my riding. "So we have a thing that gives them some flexibility. Maybe we will put a lot of freight on with a few passengers and the mail. We call it a skid run and we have some kind of deal with air carriers." And somehow they get in and out of those remote northern communities -- if they have an airstrip. If they do not, as a good many of them still do not, tough luck. Unless one happens to land on floats in the summertime or skiis in the wintertime on the lake.

What is the answer? I think there is room for free enterprise in the north. As a matter of fact, the free-enterprise people provide whatever service is there. But if you are getting $5,000 or $10,000 a year working in one of those northern reserves -- and that is a fair wage for some of them --

Mr. Kerrio: You cannot afford to fly.

Mr. Stokes: The member knows what it would do to what he and I make and take for granted as a wage. If one gets somebody who might make $6,000 a year trapping in the fall or in the spring or picking up $2,000 or $3,000 a year by commercial fishing or guiding or something like that, we are asking them to pay those rates for the privilege of getting down to visit some place like Pickle Lake or Winnipeg or Kenora or Thunder Bay. And what do we do for those people? Subsidization of transportation is a way of life, but we totally ignore the people who need it most.

5:20 p.m.

I know what the minister has said in the past, and I am saying this response just is not good enough. We have to order our priorities in such a way as to give the greatest amount of assistance to the people who need it most. That is basic.

I do not see anybody here from norOntair, but I want to thank them because they are responsive to specific problems when you bring them to their attention. A Twin Otter can accommodate only 18 passengers, I think, and a crew of two. I had a group of school kids who were going from Pickle Lake to Thunder Bay on a Twin Otter and they were connecting with either Nordair or Air Canada at Thunder Bay to come down to Toronto. They were right in this very building. There was to be an exchange: they were being accommodated down here and another school group from someplace in Scarborough was going to spend four days in Pickle Lake. The only problem was that with the students and the escorts there were 24 in the group. The people on the scene said, "No, we cannot handle this at all. You will have to send some down one day and some the next day and that is the way it is going to be."

I wrote to norOntair, explained the situation to them and told them the people from Toronto were going to face the same dilemma: they would have to go up in bunches rather than in a single group. As soon as I brought it to their attention they said, "This is a problem for us, but we realize it is a problem for those people. We want to serve you: leave it with us and we will do our darnedest to come up with some way of accommodating you." And they did.

That is a service I am sure you would never get in any other way. They were very responsive to us. They did not know how they were going to solve it, but they said, "We have just got to find a way," and they did. I think I have a responsibility to say that in public. I think it is an excellent way to do business, and they are to be commended for the excellent service they are providing. But the minister has a responsibility to allow them to expand their horizons a little bit and, as I said earlier, to assist those who really need it most. If he wants some ideas we can talk about it privately or talk about it when we get into the votes.

One thing I want to talk about is the northern airstrip program -- the Highway in the Sky program that was brought in by Irwin Haskett 10 or 11 years ago. It has served the air carriers well, it has served the Hudson's Bay Company well, it has served the Ministry of Northern Affairs well, it has served the Ministry of Transportation and Communications well and it has served the Ministry of Natural Resources well.

I want to ask this minister how it has served the people it was designed to help. I cannot get a handle on it, because if you ask for a price list for almost anything -- whether it be gasoline, staple foods, clothing -- anything they have to buy in the north: skidoos, motor boats, oil, gas, they keep going up. They say, "Yes, they keep going up but so does everything else."

I want you to compare -- take a community like Kasabonika. They are flying the equipment in there this winter and they are going to start constructing the airstrip next spring. The last time I checked they were paying $2.25 for a loaf of bread, $1.60 for a can of Carnation milk, 50 cents for an apple, 50 cents for an orange, $5 for a gallon of number two gasoline, and these little cans of naphtha gas they use for their stove or their lighting -- they do not have electric power up there either -- cost something like $9.95 a litre. You know how much a litre is. There are about 4.4 of those in a gallon. That is the kind of money they are spending in order to get consumer items into that community that is without an airstrip.

Look at the prices in Sandy Lake, look at the prices in Deer Lake -- you just mentioned you had completed the airstrip in there. I find it difficult to decide whether the tens of millions of dollars we are spending on those airstrips are having any noticeable effect on prices. I am sure there will be an effect in Kasabonika, because the prices I have just mentioned there obviously will have to come down -- that is, assuming the air carrier will pass the saving on to the store. Because when you build your airstrip, they are going to get in there with a DC-3, which has a payload of about 6,000 pounds, or they are going to get in with a 748 where they can get 10,000 to 12,000 pounds, as opposed to the biggest float-equipped aircraft they can get in there now. That is a Twin Otter on floats with a payload of anywhere from 1,500 to 2,000 pounds, depending on how old the aircraft is. You know that to be a fact.

If you can get in there with a 12,000-pound payload as opposed to a 2,000-pound payload, there is definitely a saving to the air carrier. If the air carrier passes on a fair portion of those savings to the consignee, who in many cases is the Hudson's Bay Company, and it, in its beneficence, passes them on to the consumer, then some economic benefit is going to accrue to the people whom this program was designed to help.

I am not saying we should stop building airstrips in the north; obviously we cannot stop building airstrips. All I am saying is there should be a monitoring. We have a task force, and I talked to the chairman who is heading it up -- somebody in your ministry; to Rudy Wycliffe -- two or three days ago. I said, "Have you come to any conclusions as to whether those savings are being passed on?" He said, "No I haven't and it is extremely difficult to get a handle on it."

I do not want to throw your remarks back at you, but you talked about "the tremendous impact the building of these airstrips has had on those northern communities." I want you to show me. It stood the carrier in good stead and it stood the consignee, which is one of the largest department stores in all Canada -- namely Hudson's Bay -- in good stead. But I am not altogether convinced it is helping our first citizens in the far north.

I think we should look at that, because we are helping air carriers, as we should. We subsidize every other known form of transportation, whether it be GO Transit, Via Rail where they have it, all the main carriers, such as Air Canada, CP Air or any air carrier.

5:30 p.m.

If they had to build their own air terminals and all the safety and weather facilities and everything else, I am sure we would be paying double an air fare that is already too high but, believe it, we subsidize them. We subsidize the Toronto Transit Commission to the tune of more than $80 million a year. It is the proper thing to do. How would one have public transit in Metropolitan Toronto without that subsidy?

All I am saying is, use that same philosophy and apply it up there to our first citizens, the people who really need it most. It is an excellent program as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough.

I would like briefly to speak about the road construction program. We can get into it in more detail. I am not as callous as the honourable member for Rainy River in saying it is a shell game and just a straight transfer of funds from the old ministry to the Ministry of Northern Affairs and back to MTC again. I think this ministry, since it is northern oriented, is the proper vehicle for setting the priorities for maintenance, upgrading and new construction.

My biggest problem is there is never enough to go around. It is a fact of life. One looks at the road construction program that comes out under the auspices of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. I am not going to argue about who got what. I have harped so long for something meaningful to be done with Highway 584 between Geraldton and Nakina. The traffic on this highway has increased dramatically with the expansion of Kimberly-Clark's activities in the area.

Nakina does not have a hospital so anybody who takes ill has to be rushed down that obstacle course of 44 miles to the hospital in Geraldton. Every morning, on a daily basis, there is a school bus to transport high school students 44 miles down that obstacle course. There are many mornings in the winter they cannot even make it because, if it is particularly slippery -- if there has been an ice storm or something like that -- those kids just do not go to school.

I know we have a lot of places to put our money, but with the amount of money your ministry and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the old Department of Highways has spent on that stretch of road over the last 20 to 25 years on so-called preventive maintenance, winter and summer, we could have built a four-lane highway with not a turn or a curve in it. We are still killing people on that highway.

I wrote to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications a little over a year ago about the deplorable conditions on that highway. This was based not only on my own knowledge of having driven over it but also from what I was told by people who monitor it on a daily basis. I complained about people breaking springs, losing shocks, running into the ditch, blowing tires and getting broken windshields -- all the things that happen on a road as deplorable as that.

Do members want to know the response I got from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications? Their response was, "We have not had any claims for vehicle damage." I said, "Do you mean that if we travel on one of your highways and the condition of that highway is such, we can make a claim against your ministry?" They said, "We have insurance for that sort of thing."

Mr. Wildman: Gee! I put five windshields in my car in the last three years. I should have been claiming from MTC.

Mr. Stokes: I could not believe what I was hearing. I could not believe that they used that as the criterion for whether or not they should do something about a particular numbered highway in Ontario.

Interjection.

Mr. Stokes: You know what I told my constituents, eh?

The other one is Highway 527. I am not going to go into any great detail with the minister on this. He knows, if he reads his mail. I do not know who reads his mail or who reacts to it.

The minister should just give those two highways the same kind of treatment he is giving the road to Minaki, or the same kind of treatment he gave the road from Fort Frances to Dryden. Is that the Manitou Road?

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is the Manitou Road.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Pat Reid's riding.

Mr. T. P. Reid: And they say that nothing ever happens.

Mr. Stokes: If the minister gives Highway 527 and Highway 584 that kind of treatment, I will not bore him, this committee or this House with any further talk about it.

I want to refer briefly, and I am surprised that the member for Rainy River did not raise it, to the Atikokan story.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We will get to it if we ever finish.

Mr. Stokes: There is a message there. The author is well known and is a friend to all of us. He does not have all the answers, but I think he is asking the right questions. We can get into that in more detail as we deal with these specific votes. There are a lot of questions there, and I think we collectively, headed by this minister and this ministry, have to address ourselves to this, because we cannot allow the Atikokans to persist. We have an opportunity now. I do not know how much time we have with regard to Pickle Lake, for instance; that is a pretty dicey situation, and I do not know whether we have much lead time.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Or Ear Falls.

Mr. Stokes: Or Ear Falls or Manitouwadge. Right now it is certainly the most lucrative base metal operation in the Noranda family and perhaps anywhere on the North American continent. But it is a finite resource, and every time we take a ton of ore out of the ground we are that much closer to the day when we have to find an alternative. It is the largest community, and one of the most beautiful, in the riding of Lake Nipigon. I will not be around here to see its demise, but unless we approach problems like that now, well in advance, we are going to face the same dilemma we did, and the member for Rainy River did, with regard to the Atikokan story.

I do not think we can sit by and wring our hands. We have to come up with alternatives now so that when the fateful day comes that they take the last spoonful of ore out of the ground we have something to put in its place. The day has long gone when we can walk away from millions and millions of dollars invested in schools, hospitals, roads and water and sewage plants, all the things we spend our money on, whether we are individuals, small businessmen, large corporations or two or three levels of government.

We have to find an alternative to those one-industry, single-company towns. We are broadening the base a little in Manitouwadge, because of Ontario Paper's activities there since we have finally convinced American Can they should use it as a dormitory community. We are going in the right direction, but this is a problem of development in northern Ontario that we cannot afford to ignore because it could happen to too many communities, particularly those whose problems relate to the dependence on sawmills.

5:40 p.m.

The minister and his deputy know what the not-too-distant future holds for those communities that are wholly and solely dependent on the sawmill industry. Whoever is here four or five years from now will be standing right where I am, saying: "What did we do wrong with the forest industry? Why could we not find the sawlogs necessary to keep Hearst, Chapleau, Dubreuilville and Longlac going?" We will have to answer for that. We cannot afford to ignore those kinds of problems. We can get into them in more detail later.

I have gone on longer than I expected to or should have, but northern affairs is a subject very near and dear to my heart. In closing, I want to say the minister is on the right track. I do not know of anything he is doing now that is counterproductive, that we should not be doing or that he should be getting out of. It is a question of putting more funding into things that work well. Not only should the minister take the lead in the north but he should also take the lead in the south, because that is where the bucks are.

We must convince these Jaspers down here that what the government is doing in the north is fine and dandy, and we just need more of it. If we can, we should get the attention of people down here of people like the Minister of Education, who looks at things from a very pragmatic, very impersonal kind of way. She knows how many students are out there. She knows how many dollars she has, and she just throws it up in the air and says: "What you catch is yours. What falls on the ground -- " I do not know how she thinks. All I am saying is that the minister should not let them close any of our high schools.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I do not normally have my deputy minister sit in front of me, but on the occasion of his retirement as I go through the estimates of my ministry I would like Mr. Herridge to join me on the floor of the Legislature. He has a wealth of knowledge and a background on northern Ontario issues and problems which equals that of any of us from northern Ontario. It is with pleasure that I ask Mr. Herridge to join me. I know that from time to time he will call on some of the other experts within the ministry.

I want to thank the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) and the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) for their support for the ministry in general. I sense a satisfaction in their remarks. I have to agree with both of them when they say that basically we are on the right track, but there is not sufficient funding to support some of our desires. I share that view on some occasions.

My colleagues in cabinet know how I feel about some of the funding we all share in. We all have certain parameters to live within. Nevertheless, it is the strong support that I do get from my northern colleagues on both sides of the House, not only the member for Rainy River and the member for Lake Nipigon but also my parliamentary assistant, the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) --

Mr. Stokes: What does he do?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: What does he do? I am glad he is here. He is one of my strongest supporters. He is very supportive. He spends a lot of time in my office. We discuss --

Mr. Stokes: Just do not follow him.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I cannot. I cannot keep up to him, he moves around so fast and so well throughout northern Ontario. In his role as parliamentary assistant, he is becoming extremely familiar with all parts of northern Ontario. I want to say publicly how much I appreciate his strong support for the policies and programs that we jointly come together with in our ministry. It is with a great deal of pride that I have my parliamentary assistant here with me, because he is doing a great job, not only on behalf of the Ministry of Northern Affairs but also on behalf of the Ontario government.

Both of the members who spoke mentioned the industrial development strategy, in that there was a lack of an overall, clear-cut strategy for economic development across northern Ontario.

Mr. Kerrio: Clear-cut. That is a good word, Leo.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Clear-cut; whatever it is.

I want to refer to some of the comments that I believe the members have in their briefing books. I think it is worthy of mentioning, where the actual strategies of the ministry are laid out in detail.

I want to put on the record some of the objectives that we have, and I refer to page three of the report in the briefing books, titled "Strategies of the Ministry of Northern Affairs." I suppose I could put on the record three areas that we zero in on, with some brief comments about them.

"1. A strategy to meet the objective of ensuring that policies, programs and priorities throughout government, as they affect the north, are appropriate to the north." I think that is most important.

In addressing this objective, we must, and we do, try to:

"(a) Maintain effective liaison with appropriate officials throughout the government of Ontario and other levels of government." Not only do we move around to other ministries, but also we try, and sometimes not as successfully as we would like, to work with other levels of government. I refer to the federal government, because our co-operation and level of assistance with the municipality is excellent. We have an excellent rapport with all the municipal governments in northern Ontario that we serve.

"(b) Participate in government and interministerial planning and advisory committees, task forces and study groups." And we are there on a regular basis.

"(c) Prepare ministry positions with respect to policy issues coming before cabinet, its committees and secretariats."

My regional staff in the Toronto office spends a lot of their time just reviewing the various policies and programs of other ministries. They are certainly very helpful in the weekly cabinet and committee meetings that we have in preparing a northern Ontario focus on all of the policy papers that come to the cabinet committees on resource development, social development and justice.

In fact, as members know, my regional staff even monitor the minutes of Management Board of Cabinet, because I, as the Minister of Northern Affairs, am a member of that board; it takes a great deal of time and effort, and I must say that they do a tremendous job.

I want to mention one person, Dorothy Templeton, who co-ordinates all of this in the ministry. Dorothy Templeton has been with the government for a considerable time and has a very deep knowledge of the functions of government as a whole; she does an excellent job of pulling together all those position papers.

"(d) Take appropriate action in concert with other ministries or independently to bring about needed changes." I think both members will agree that over the past four years they have seen this happen in a number of different areas.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Give us some specific details. Give us an example.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I guess the air ambulance is a good one. We had an excellent land ambulance operation through northern Ontario. We prevailed on the Ministry of Health. We said: "The need is much greater than land ambulances. We have the far-flung communities of Sandy Lake and Big Trout Lake; we have emergency problems there. The idea of dedicated aircraft throughout the north is something we think should be in place." The obvious comment that came back was, "It is a great idea."

Mr. T. P. Reid: Who is going to fund it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Who is going to fund it? We sat down with the very co-operative Minister of Health and his deputy minister, Mr. Campbell, who is very familiar with northern Ontario, and we worked out a cost-sharing arrangement to get the program going. That is one example of how we have brought in change. There are many more I could recite.

"(2) A strategy to meet the objective of stimulating soundly based economic development and diversification throughout the north.

"In addressing this objective, the Ministry of Northern Affairs acts as advocate, co-ordinator and as an originator and implementer of programs. As advocate, its strategy is to:

"(a) determine and identify northern economic needs, aspirations and opportunities;

"(b) review, monitor and evaluate existing government programs of economic development;

"(c) establish clearly defined positions and viewpoints on questions of economic development, based on its special knowledge of the north; and

"(d) provide for research to identify local and sectoral economic opportunities and to establish economic development strategies."

That gives members some background on our thrust with regard to that particular area.

"As co-ordinator, [our] strategy is to:

"(a) act as a catalyst and facilitator in other ministries' efforts to modify programs to meet northern economic circumstances; and

"(b) facilitate the efforts of other ministries to resolve conflicting or competing objectives, to eliminate program duplications and to achieve more effective interministerial co-operation."

Mr. Stokes: How does it apply to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Let me look at Atikokan. Both the member for Rainy River and the member for Lake Nipigon touched on the Atikokan story. I think what I have just spelled out in our strategy applies to the Atikokan situation, where we saw a single-resource community, a nonrenewable resource community, on the verge of moving out. I believe there were some members who said there would never be an ongoing Atikokan, if I remember correctly.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It was not the member for Rainy River.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No. It was the present member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché), I believe, who appeared on a local television show and categorically said that when the iron ore is exhausted, that could spell the end of Atikokan.

I arrived in Atikokan the very next day, and I said very bluntly and proudly that there will always be an Atikokan, just as the member for Lake Nipigon knows there will always be a Savant Lake, an Allen Water and an Armstrong. One does not wipe those communities off the face of the earth. They are there and we are responding to that.

At Atikokan, we moved in with a lead ministry concept, a new thrust to that particular area. The reeve of Atikokan at that time and the council were searching for some direction. They were in trouble. There is no question about it. They did not know where to go. They could see the complexities of the Ontario government, the various levels of bureaucratic red tape they would have to go through in 26 different ministries. They just threw up their hands in frustration, saying: "We could not achieve what we wanted to achieve. Please give us some help to walk us through that maze."

We did. We moved in there. We accepted by cabinet order, by order in council, to undertake the lead ministry role in the Atikokan situation and to look at all aspects of guaranteeing that there would be a long-term viability of that community. It has worked. There is no question about it. I am sure the member for Rainy River will agree with me when I say, with a great deal of pride, that the Atikokan situation is something we can look back on and say we have accomplished something.

Many members have expressed concern about single-resource communities. What is the future for these single-resource communities, in particular the nonrenewable-resource ones? I do not have the same concern for the renewable resource communities, like the Hudsons, that depend on the wood resources of this province. I have a concern, but it is not as serious as my concern for the nonrenewable resource communities like the Manitouwadges and the Kirkland Lakes. They have a completely different situation, as we will see in Pickle Lake.

I hope we will be designated as the lead ministry in Pickle Lake, because I think we can play a role that is different. I think we can extend the sensitivity that is so important in dealing with the various levels of government, and carry that sensitivity down here.

Mr. Stokes: You mentioned "sectoral opportunities". That escaped me. What did you mean?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In what context did I mention that? I will find it here. I will certainly get back to it, Mr. Chairman.

If I can carry on with the Atikokan situation, I want to point out that the success of that story was a result of working very closely with other ministries; we worked in close liaison with the municipality in walking with the municipality through the maze of government to get the full co-operation and attention of other ministries.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You had a good man in Allan Moon.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, we did. And I take my hat off to Allan Moon. I am sorry that he --

Mr. T. P. Reid: He quit.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No. He has taken a one-year sabbatical leave, and I hope he will be back.

In our efforts on behalf of Atikokan we dealt very closely with the Ministry of Natural Resources and with Pluswood in getting them to expand; that was something that was very real. We worked very closely with the Ministry of Natural Resources in regard to their geological surveys, the airborne surveys that attracted a lot of mineral attention to the Atikokan area. We also worked very closely with the Ministry of Industry and Tourism in setting up an industrial park and a small industrial mall that is now coming well into being.

The Deputy Chairman: The minister will be watching the clock because, when we do resume, we want to begin on vote 701.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Bernier, the committee of supply reported progress.

The House recessed at 5:58 p.m.

November 9, 1981