Hansard Transcripts 1982-May-31 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege to express to this Legislature the indignation of 7,100 citizens of the town of Acton, which has been left off the official road map of Ontario, to be published at the end of June.

It could be understood if this was a simple error. Errors of this nature apparently have happened before. But, in fact, the omission of the town of Acton from this official road map is deliberate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That really is not a point of privilege -- unless you are going to develop one.

Mr. J. A. Reed: It would seem the privileges of 7,000 citizens, as well as mine as their representative, are at stake here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of personal privilege.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Are you saying it is not a point of privilege?

Mr. Speaker: That is exactly right. Your privileges have not been abused in any way.

Mr. J. A. Reed: How about a point of order?

Mr. Speaker: A point of order?

Mr. J. A. Reed: Whatever. A point of information?

Mr. Speaker: Clarification? I suggest the proper way to handle it would be to ask the question of the minister involved at the proper time.

Mr. J. A. Reed: So you are going to rule me out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I already have. Thank you.

MUNICIPAL ELECTION REFERENDUM

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege which speaks to my privileges as a member of the House.

On May 13, that day of infamy when the budget was brought down in the House, I, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and others, raised questions of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) about the possibility of a disarmament resolution being brought forward this year by municipalities and about some questions of legality that were being raised at that time. We were told by the minister, and then by the Premier, that they were looking into the legal ramifications this raised.

The Premier promised me, as reported on page 1715 of Hansard, "As soon as we have that information, I am sure either the Attorney General or the Minister of Municipal Affairs will be delighted to share it with members of the House."

I have a copy of a letter here which was taken down over the phone by the assistant to the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes). It is a letter to the clerk-treasurer of the township of Longlac from the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) in which he clearly makes a decision as to whether this will be an order. I would like to read it into the record and then basically ask why we were not told about this first, as the Premier indicated we would be.

Mr. Speaker: From what the member has said, I do not see that the member's privileges have been abused. Again, I think it would be more appropriately handled during question period by the appropriate minister.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I am not going to debate it. I do not recognize it as a point of privilege.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: If I might, I am not sure I understand it. The promise has been made by the Premier that something would be brought forward at the earliest opportunity by a minister. It has not been done. In fact, it is shared, in one opinion, with one township. Surely that does abrogate a promise and therefore my privilege as a member of this House.

Mr. Foulds: That was a promise, if I might --

Mr. Stokes: It was the word of an honourable

member.

Mr. Foulds: Right, exactly.

Mr. Speaker: Right, exactly. I think a commitment was made. I do not know whether it has not been fulfilled. I am sure it will; I am sure the Premier, or whoever it was that the member is asking the question, will take note of the member's inquiry. Again, I would suggest that it would be more properly handled in the question period by the proper minister.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order --

Mr. Speaker: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Stokes: The member cannot rise while the Speaker is still standing.

Mr. Speaker: All right.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, is it not clear under the standing orders of the House that ministerial statements are the opportunity to make statements of policy by the government? In that case, surely, when a commitment has been made to the House that a statement of policy will be made as soon as possible in response to a question, when the government has clearly decided on the policy and is disseminating it throughout the province to municipalities, surely it is an abrogation of the privileges of the House that the opportunity, according to the standing orders, was not taken by the minister to make the statement in the House to the members and to my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston).

Mr. Speaker: I think the key word is "opportunity" -- the opportunity to make the statement. With all respect, I do not think the privileges of any member, or of all members, have been abused. From what I understand the honourable member to say, a commitment was given and presumably that will be addressed at the appropriate time.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, why do we not just close down the Legislature and let the government make its statements to the province through television or radio?

Mr. Speaker: The member is clearly out of order.

Mr. Foulds: He should make a statement, according to the policy of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a related point of privilege? It long has been the tradition of this House, with the budget and other policy matters, that ministers will make a statement here prior to that being released elsewhere.

This letter, to the township of Longlac, was sent from the Attorney General's office on May 21. That is quite a substantial period of time between the minister making a substantial policy statement in which it is clear that the Attorney General of Ontario now feels the nuclear disarmament question would challenge all the municipal elections this fall --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: That is not what I said.

Mr. Breaugh: The minister is prepared to argue today --

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I think we are getting into a debate. Quite clearly, there is an obvious difference of opinion. It is not my responsibility to adjudicate.

Mr. Foulds: Why does the minister not make a statement now?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:10 p.m.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to correct the record. On Friday, May 28, the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) said, and I would like to quote her statement in the introduction of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act: "Negotiations will continue to be carried on locally on matters of local concern." She left the impression that some shred of local autonomy would continue.

The Globe and Mail this morning reported a person by the name of William Mitchell, administrative officer of education of the Ministry of Education, as saying that "Metro-wide negotiations would apply only to salaries, benefits and teacher-student ratios. Other areas, working conditions and time off, for example, would be negotiated with the local board."

These statements contradict in a very real way the legislation that was tabled on Friday. I would like to quote the relevant point of the legislation, which says in subsection 130(i)(1) --

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all respect, this is not a point of privilege. Quite obviously, there is a difference in two conflicting pieces of information. I have no way of knowing who is right or who is wrong. I suggest to the honourable member that he ask a question of the minister at the appropriate time.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MUNICIPAL JOB CREATION PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to provide the members with details about my ministry's municipal job creation program, which is making $34.5 million available to create jobs on local government projects throughout the province. This program, which will be of special assistance to municipalities, boards and commissions, will generate 7,500 jobs between now and the end of this year. The program is an element of the province's $171-million, short-term job creation program announced in the May 13 budget. The Board of Industrial Leadership and Development is responsible for co-ordinating the immediate implementation of this overall program, which is aimed at communities most affected by high unemployment.

Since the main thrust of my ministry's program is to relieve unemployment, the allocation of funds will be made to each municipality in proportion to the number of people receiving social assistance in each jurisdiction. Preference for jobs will be given to people on welfare or unemployment insurance benefits and those registered with local Canada Manpower centres.

Any local government project involving repair or renovation of public property is eligible for job creation grants providing it meets the following conditions:

It must provide additional employment, jobs which would not have existed without this program; the project may already have been scheduled but may be expanded to create additional work and employment as a result of this program; it must employ people other than those regularly on the municipal payroll; the project must be completed by December 31, 1982; the project should not be assisted by other grants.

I would like to point out that the projects may be undertaken by the municipality itself or let out to an independent contractor. Grants made under this program are for labour costs only, and no other costs will be reimbursed. The labour cost incurred as a result of creating addition employment in each municipality will be reimbursed in full up to the amount of each municipality's allocation.

It should also be noted that the wages paid should be at those rates currently prevailing in the community for the type of work involved. Standard benefits usually covered by collective bargaining agreements also will be reimbursed.

I would like to assure the members that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is implementing this program immediately so that Ontarians can get back to work as soon as possible. For the members' information, I am sending them a copy of the letter I have sent today to all municipal heads of council along with the project details and the actual application forms.

NORTHERN EMPLOYMENT INCENTIVES PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have copies of my statement for the members of the opposition.

My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has just announced a program of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development and his ministry to create jobs on local government projects in municipalities throughout the province. I would like to announce today a complementary program in my ministry for northern Ontario's unorganized areas.

The northern employment incentives program for unorganized areas will make available $500,000 immediately to create jobs on projects in the north's population centres that have no municipal organization. We are inviting non-profit groups, such as community organizations, clubs and local services boards, to come forward with proposals for community improvement projects of a labour-intensive nature.

Labour costs for eligible projects will be reimbursed 100 per cent up to $7,500. In addition, the Ministry of Northern Affairs will also reimburse 25 per cent of the costs for materials and equipment rentals on projects approved under this special employment incentives program. These funds will come from our unorganized communities assistance fund.

The program will be administered through our 29 local northern affairs offices. There will be no deadline for applications. However, projects approved for funding must be completed by December 31, 1982.

Funding for the northern employment incentive program is provided by BILD and, as my colleague the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs has just pointed out, our two programs will create in the area of 7,500 jobs between now and the end of the year.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INCO DISPUTE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister bring this House up to date on the negotiations at Inco, whether there will be a walkout tonight, and what he has been doing through his ministry to try to bring the sides together?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, of course it is a very serious problem and one that is rather close to home for me, because, next to Sault Ste. Marie, the city of Sudbury is probably the closest community in affection and in tradition and so on to us in Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Foulds: What about Elliot Lake?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: No, Sudbury is closer than Elliot Lake.

This morning I was in contact with Ms. Judy Erola from the federal government, who is terribly concerned about the situation there, as are all federal and provincial members from the Sudbury area. I also had a meeting this morning with my senior people to make sure everything that could be done to date has been done.

We feel that at the moment we really do not have too many alternatives as far as collective bargaining is concerned. Neither party has requested third-party intervention. I say that with the knowledge that Ms. Erola told me otherwise. We are trying to check on that at this time. We did have phone calls in this morning to representatives of the union to check out whether they were requesting third-party intervention. Our understanding at this time is that they are not. Certainly that is the case as far as the company is concerned.

I can assure the members that we are in constant touch with both parties. We are going to attempt to bring them together just as soon as we possibly can. We are being briefed on an almost hourly basis. The ministry is prepared to do whatever is possible, but at the moment it really boils down to a collective bargaining situation in which the representatives of my ministry were involved right through until the end. They did everything they could at that time, and right now we are waiting for further consultation.

Mr. Peterson: Given that this strike could have devastating repercussions for Sudbury, a community that is just now getting out of the hole because of the strike some two and a half years ago; given that this could be a precedent for a bitter round of negotiations over the next few months; given that the Ontario economy is already in recession and we are experiencing a great number of problems; and given that there is a precedent for ministers or Premiers to intervene in these kinds of strikes, does the minister not feel it is his personal responsibility to intervene and do everything he can to try to prevent a strike occurring tonight?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I agree with everything the Leader of the Opposition is saying. I cannot disagree with a word of what he is saying.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, in the event that a strike does occur some time today or tomorrow, has the minister given any consideration to the serious impact this will have on the Canadian economy and on the mining sector of the province, not only in the Sudbury basin but also on the operations of Inco in Port Colborne? Has the minister considered bringing in some form of legislation to give a cooling-off period so that both parties have a chance to take a second look at the direction they are going and time to get back to the bargaining table?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, no, I have not considered legislation; but I completely agree with the sentiments of the member for Erie as to the seriousness of the situation.

2:20 p.m.

ENERGY RATES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. I am sure the minister is viewing with some alarm the application of Consumers' Gas for a new facilities charge of some $18.30 a month regardless of how much gas is consumed.

Given that I gather Consumers' is counting on this new facilities charge to generate about 75 per cent of its profits and given that this new charge will penalize people who are attempting to conserve, does the minister not feel it is his obligation to intervene to prevent this kind of pricing structure from being allowed in this province?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, we had a fairly thorough discussion of this during question period on Friday. Hansard will show this question was asked by the member for Welland--Thorold (Mr. Swart), and there was a supplementary by the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley).

Having said that, I would draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to that exchange, at which time I suggested it would be improper to intervene at this stage since this is an application now before the Ontario Energy Board. The applicant has completed the details, the hearing has been advertised and interventions have been invited according to the rules of the Ontario Energy Board; so it would be improper to be interfering with that process until such time as the Ontario Energy Board has had an opportunity to review it. That is the practice here with respect to applications of this nature.

Mr. Peterson: The minister's good friend at Union Gas is already doing this; its facilities fee now has gone from $4.50 to $5.40 a month, generating millions of dollars for Union Gas, and has nothing to do with the amount consumed. Given that this will not encourage conservation, does the minister not feel that fundamentally it is the wrong philosophy for energy pricing? Does he not feel he has a responsibility as minister to make sure the public policy goals of his government are achieved through the pricing mechanisms for energy? It is his responsibility to get involved in this thing and not let this happen.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think it is the responsibility of the Minister of Energy to protect the integrity of the system and to make quite sure that the process being followed is not interfered with from the political organization here. We have a procedure to be followed.

As I said in response to the thoughtful supplementary question raised by the member for St. Catharines, this does not detract from the commitment of this government to conservation. It does not detract from the commitment of this government that one of the routes to crude oil self-sufficiency in this country is substitution of other fuels for oil, of which gas is one. This does not preclude us from making it quite clear that we are still equally committed to the off-oil program sponsored by the government of Canada.

I think at this stage the honourable member will understand we have an application before the Ontario Energy Board. The applicant will make its presentation there and interveners will no doubt make this and other arguments for the consideration of the board.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, in his answer today and in his answer to the same question I asked on Friday, the Minister of Energy has indicated -- and I do not understand the logic -- that neither he nor his government should intervene because this is now before the Ontario Energy Board. Does he not realize it is before the board for a hearing and that the government, through the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) or any other minister, has the right to intervene and make representation at that hearing to protect the consumers?

If his ministry or his government is not going to do that, will they at least consider funding some organization, such as the Consumers' Association of Canada, to intervene at that hearing? Then the consumers will have some protection if the government is not prepared to give it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied that the points of view expressed by my friend the member for Welland--Thorold and others with respect to this concern will be well articulated before the Ontario Energy Board.

I repeat that to protect the integrity of the system I do not think it would be appropriate for the minister to intervene at this stage.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about integrity in the system, but I wonder whether he is really willing or anxious to change the legislation because, with the integrity that exists, he has been ripping the people off in a monopoly that is unfair. Unconscionable increases have taken place under the system he has described.

I ask the minister, does he not think it is time to change the legislation to protect the consumers in this province from a monopoly that is unconscionably taking advantage of them?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, is my friend the member for Niagara Falls asking me whether we are prepared to bring in legislation to disband the Ontario Energy Board?

Mr. Kerrio: If that has to be, yes.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We have no intention of doing that. I really cannot really imagine it, but is that the policy of the official opposition: to get rid of the Ontario Energy Board?

TAX ON NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. Can the minister tell us why his ministry is being so niggardly, mean-spirited and chintzy as to remove the sales tax exemption on food sold by church groups, Royal Canadian Legions, ethnic organizations, church basement banquets, booths at fairs and festivals such as Carousel and Caravan? Does he not think that at least those nonprofit and charitable organizations should be free from the greed and avarice of this government?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, as the honour- able member knows, the Ministry of Revenue is administering the budget as brought down by my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) on May 13. Although not everyone may agree with any specific part of that budget, I think there is a general conclusion out there now that, overall, it was an excellent budget and will do much to stimulate activity in Ontario. Although it is very difficult for one small province to offset the damage done last November by the federal budget, at least it is a step in the right direction.

Not all parts of the budget have been well received by all parties; there is no doubt about that at all. Some organizations will be responsible --

Mr. McClellan: Tell us what you really think, George.

Mr. Boudria: You can trust us, George.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: No doubt there will be organizations and individuals collecting tax on our behalf who had not done so before. However, contrary to what has been implied by members opposite, that tax will not be paid by the organization, whether it be charitable, nonprofit or otherwise. It will be a further cost to the consumer. It is true they will have the problem of making collections and returns but, when we get right down to it, most taxpaying groups are not too concerned about the bit of administration they will have to do on our behalf.

Mr. Foulds: May I remind the minister that Ontario is not "one small province," even though it has a small-minded government.

Does the minister not realize that those are his regulations under section 28 and his legislation under section 7 where he has the authority, the responsibility and the ability to exempt these organizations from the tax? Is it not his responsibility as a tax collector to exempt these organizations? What is the minister trying to do, make tax collectors of everybody in the province? Does he not think that this is at least one area where he could exert some charity and exempt the charitable, nonprofit organizations of this province?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: There is no doubt that within our various taxing statutes there is some leeway for interpretation and making of regulations by the minister. There is also no doubt at all that my mandate is primarily to fulfil at least the spirit of the Treasurer's budget, and that is what we are attempting to do.

I know that on the surface it sounds like a real motherhood issue to suggest who should or should not be responsible for the collection of taxes. But let me point out -- because I am sure the member has not thought about it -- the kind of situation that could occur, whether it be at Fiesta Week in Oshawa, Caravan in Toronto or the upcoming Canadian National Exhibition. Can the member see the hot-dog stand or the hamburger stand operated by a church -- the denomination does not matter; that is beside the point -- or any other recognized charitable association, with their big sign above it. "Buy here because you do not pay tax'? But the poor entrepreneurs on either side --

Interjections.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Oh, no; that is fine. The member obviously has not thought about the straight mechanics. That is exactly the kind of situation being suggested; and how could one possibly say that is fair, it is not.

Mr. Peterson: In the budget documents, the Treasurer estimates this tax on prepared food will generate about $110 million. Is the Minister of Revenue aware the restaurant association is of a view that it will generate for the treasury probably $170 million that he has underestimated the impact of that on his revenues? He is aware, of course, a number of senior citizens who rely on prepared meals will have to pay higher taxes at the same time that he has cut their guaranteed annual income supplement payments. How can he justify taking on the one hand -- on two hands as he is doing from seniors particularly -- when he does have some discretion to move? Surely he should exercise that discretion, particularly when he has underestimated his revenue through this tax.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I guess one year from now when the Treasurer brings down his budget we will see who is right, the Treasurer in his estimates or the restaurant association; so be it. I think that is really neither here nor there at this time.

As far as the other illusions held by the Leader of the Opposition are concerned, to tie in with that kind of question the suggestion that we have cut Gains payments is really twisting the facts. I will be charitable, as I always am, but he knows that after each April 1 all seniors who have been recipients of Gains payments or the guaranteed income supplement have to file a statement of their previous year's income with the federal government. If their income is higher, potentially their Gains payment could be less; there is no doubt about that. Similarly, if their income is lower, of course their Gains payment, unless it is already at the maximum, will be higher.

If anybody's payment went down recently, and this is the adjustment time of the year, it is because in April, 1982, they declared greater income for 1981 through their statement to the federal government for old age security and guaranteed income supplement. There is no doubt about that.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister understands that, for example, the first weekend of the Carousel facilities or festival in Windsor will be tax free; the second weekend will be taxable.

Does the minister not understand how valuable these festivals are to their communities? How does he suggest these organizations, which are operated by volunteers, are to attempt to collect this tax? How does he suggest they should go about calculating the tax, collecting it and undertaking all the rest of the complications that are going to result because of this ridiculous, regressive law?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt at all that on June 14, when this portion of the budget is implemented, there will be a change for many businesses. If some happen to be in the middle of a one-week campaign, so be it. That is unfortunate but that is the effective date.

On the other side of the coin, other parts of the budget are being criticized because they were not given a month of lead time. In this particular area of the budget a month's lead time was given, so June 14 is the implementation date.

As far as the administrative details of collecting tax are concerned, I would suggest it will be a bit of a problem for the first few days for any organization that maybe has not handled tax before, but they will get used to it. Those who have looked closely at the legislation will see we are now making it easier for organizations to be able to charge a tax-inclusive price, which they were unable to do before, as long as they post the fact that the tax is in the prices quoted, on the menu or on the marquee or wherever it is they are putting their prices. They must say it includes the seven per cent retail sales tax or, if it is alcoholic beverages, 10 per cent.

They can do it as a tax included price. There is a relatively simple formula they can put to their receipts at the end of the day and be able to transmit their tax collections accordingly. Unless they choose to do so, they will not have to keep a separate item-by-item collection basis of, for example, $1.50 for food and 11 cents tax. They will not have to do it that way.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, if I had another supplementary question I would ask him if he was going to tax Meals on Wheels next. As I do not, I will ask the Minister of Labour a question.

A Workmen's Compensation Board pensioner granted an award in 1976 will have lost 23.3 per cent of his income due to inflation by April of this year. In view of this, are we to take it as a matter of government policy that inflation is to be fought on the backs of the disabled workers of this province? If not, can the minister explain why he has not proceeded to introduce legislation which would automatically adjust WCB pensions to take inflation into account?

In particular, can he explain whether he agrees with the recommendations of Paul Weiler in his report of 1980 that there should be an automatic formula to adjust pensions for WCB recipients when Weiler says, "If the government or citizenry of Ontario is not prepared to justify an explicit reduction in the real entitlement of worker's compensation pensioners, to take such a step as a conscious policy, they must not tacitly permit the same result to come about by allowing supposedly impersonal economic forces to take their course?"

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding the last time the benefits were adjusted was at the end of June 1981 and we have not reached that point as yet. It is also my understanding the previous time the benefits were adjusted was some two years prior to that date. The matter of benefits is being constantly reviewed by the WCB and by the Ministry of Labour.

I also have to point out that the Weiler report is scheduled to go before a select committee this summer, at which time many of the factors raised by Mr. Weiler will be discussed and studied at considerable length.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister not understand that no matter what the select committee or other studies indicate, the people on total permanent disability have lost 23 per cent of the income promised to them when the award was made in 1976? Does he not know that even since the last award the pensioner has lost nine per cent? He should consider that in view of Mr. Weiler's comment about the award that was given in 1981 and all previous so-called catch-up awards.

It is interesting that the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) will play catch-up for the doctors but the minister will not play catch-up for the disabled workers of the province. He should consider Mr. Weiler's comment that those pensions and those awards given at the end of the legislative session are " ... out of date before the ink is dry on the amending bill."

Does the minister not think it is time he brought in an automatic escalation? Does he not think it is time he has the guts to say it is government policy to help control inflation by keeping those people down by not increasing their incomes the way it was actually promised when the award was made?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, there is only one reference there that might upset me a bit and that is the matter of guts, but I will leave that matter and respond to it another time. My answer to the various questions that were asked by the member opposite is that I am aware of the various matters he raised in this House today.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, back to the original question: Since it was June 1981 when the benefits were last adjusted, is the minister saying today he now intends within the next 30 days to announce a further upward adjustment in those benefits? Can the minister give us his assurance that, just as the doctors got an upward adjustment that not only kept pace but went ahead of inflation, so will the injured workers?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will only repeat what I said in response to that original question: The matter is under constant review by the WCB and our ministry.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I think everybody understands he is aware of the situation and that the matter is under review. We are asking why he does not want to make a commitment now that he will introduce legislation before the end of the session that the Workmen's Compensation Act be amended so that the benefits of the injured workers will be increased. Why does he not want to make that commitment?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make any sort of commitment of that nature at this time.

MASSEY-FERGUSON DIVIDENDS

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade having to do with the announcement made by Massey-Ferguson that they are going to forego the regular dividend payable on their preferred shares. Since the government has guaranteed these preferred shares to the extent of $75 million can the minister report if there has been a call on that guarantee and if he expects there to be one?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, to date I do not know if there has been a call. There is a procedure that is followed which requires notifying first of all the trustee, who would then notify the shareholders -- there are about 15 different shareholders. The shareholders have a period of days in which to take advantage of the retraction.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the second quarter report of Massey-Ferguson indicates a net loss three times as large as that for the same period a year ago, about the time we entered into this guarantee arrangement. Would the minister not think it is time he and his confreres in Ottawa should avail themselves of the right to enter the board of Massey-Ferguson to protect the interests of the taxpayers?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, this is something that will undoubtedly be considered, although at the moment it is fair to say we have no shares of that corporation. I suppose it is conceivable we may not have any shares even several months down the way. I would think that unlikely.

We will probably end up having some preferred shares. The preferred shares, of course, have certain benefits and rights attached to them with respect to cumulativeness and the interest that would be paid on them, and with respect to the ultimate value and priorities they might have.

However, at that point it might be prudent for the federal government, which has a somewhat larger share of any pro rata distribution, and the provincial government, which would have a lesser share, to consider the feasibility of a direct directorship relationship, or at least some kind of relationship greater than is the case today. Now it is merely a monitoring committee relationship.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the minister will remember this party voted against the legislation on Massey because we said the government was taking all the risk and it made more sense to have a direct investment at the time. Now it appears our $75 million guarantee will result in a direct investment. Can the minister assure us that by participating in that firm there will be a better guarantee of jobs, research and development and the other types of performance guarantees we have talked about? And is he now prepared to admit the position taken by this caucus was in fact the correct one and the position the government should have taken at the time?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I guess I would have to say the position taken by the New Democratic Party caucus as a whole was nothing short of that of an ostrich at that moment.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: The NDP suggested at the time that we take direct investment and were not satisfied with the position of merely holding out the potential guarantee or potential investment. With regard to its worldwide mandates and worldwide involvement, Massey has met virtually all the conditions that have been set down -- indeed, including that of employment.

I want to read to the member for a moment the report of the honourable Herb Gray, who issued a press release. This federal statement was issued from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Ottawa last Friday, and it says among other things:

"Massey-Ferguson has acted vigorously to restructure its operations and to cope with the serious deterioration in the marketplace that has occurred over the past four years. Massey- Ferguson has rationalized its operations through divestments, plant closures and consolidation of manufacturing operations outside Canada, and has gradually reduced its worldwide employment from 68,000 employees to 39,000 employees, while still maintaining its Canadian employment at more than 6,000. These measures have significantly reduced its overhead and other operating costs.

"Recent months have seen an unexpectedly sharp downturn in world markets which has affected all major farm equipment manufacturers. This has prevented the company from returning to profitability as quickly as anticipated. The decision not to declare a dividend will conserve cash in the company as they undertake the second phase of their restructuring to lower their debt burden. This restructuring is to be carried out entirely in the private sector. The company has met all of its commitment to government.

OPP SERVICES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker, if he would take his seat. How does the Solicitor General justify his decision to abandon the municipality of Dubreuilville by closing the one-constable Ontario Provincial Police detachment there in June and servicing that community from Wawa, more than 50 miles away? Is it true that instead of providing protection for OPP officers by setting up two-men detachments at the minimum the decision has been made to close one-constable detachments, such as the one in Dubreuilville?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on this matter of the OPP detachment at Dubreuilville, I believe there was a manpower deployment there. To improve service, as the OPP are always trying to do, to the people in the different areas where they are required to perform their policing functions there are going to be larger resources now available at the Wawa detachment. Indeed, there will be four additional officers stationed at Wawa. Some of them will be bilingual, and will be better able to serve the people in that area. There will be also be a storefront operation in Dubreuilville, still maintained by the OPP, and they will be able to serve the residents best by that method.

There is also a large expense going into the provision of a very up-to-date radio communication network. The police today have to cover very large distances, and with this modern police radio network they will be able to serve the people in the area better by working out of Wawa than Dubreuilville.

Mr. Wildman: It is beyond me how the minister can say he is improving service by closing a detachment. Is it true there are only unilingual, English-speaking radio dispatchers in the Wawa detachment? Even if there is a new radio system a community that is over 50 per cent francophone, and most of them are unilingual, would still have to deal in English in contacting the Wawa detachment.

Also, does the minister not realize there are more than 50 miles of very poor roads between Wawa and Dubreuilville? How can he say this is improving service? Is it not another example of the lack of commitment of this government to providing services in this province to the francophone community, as it should be doing?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I am not aware at present of the language efficiencies of the communication radio operators at either of these places, but I will find that out for the member. Naturally they are at all times trying to improve the communication network and seeking out individuals who are bilingual in those areas where bilingual services have to be provided by this government. I will discover that information for the honourable member and report back.

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier, but, as he is away, I will direct it to the Minister of Energy. It deals with Ontario Hydro. As the minister is aware, there is considerable concern in the county of Hastings regarding the possible loss of approximately 400 jobs at Madawaska Mines. It is feared this mine will close at the end of June. As this closing relates in part to whether or not the mine will get a contract to supply uranium to Ontario Hydro, could the minister bring this Legislature up to date on what action is being taken by the government to maintain the jobs in this area?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the member for Peterborough--Hastings (Mr. Pollock) brought this matter to my attention some time ago. Indeed, he was responsible for bringing in a delegation from that area to make some representations to government and subsequently to the chairman of the board of directors of Ontario Hydro.

It is my understanding at the moment that Ontario Hydro has invited some proposals for their requirements. Obviously, there have been some responses to that invitation. One of those proposals is from the mine in question. There has been a preliminary review of those, but the board has not, as yet, made a final decision. Indeed, I think the chairman of the board advised the delegation headed by the member for Hastings--Peterborough that they expected to address that matter sometime during the June meeting of the board.

Mr. O'Neil: Time is slipping away very quickly as we start into June tomorrow and the mine might close at the end of June. I wonder if I might ask the minister the date of that meeting and whether there is any hope those jobs will be maintained?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to know the source of the problem has been the early cancellation of a contract which the owner of this mine had. Rather than running until the end of this year, it expires at the end of June. As I say, the board will be giving some consideration to this matter at its meeting, which I think is about June 10.

UPGRADING OF RENTAL HOUSING

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) and I hope the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) will pay attention since it also concerns his ministry.

My question concerns the Minister of Housing's recently announced program which calls for 20-year interest free loans of up to $7,500 per unit to promote rehabilitation by landlords of private rental accommodation now under rent review. Is the minister aware landlords are now making use of section 128 and regulation 9 of the Residential Tenancies Act to use upgrading or improvements to evict tenants, to raise rents substantially without justification before the rent review board and, indeed, to get out of rent review entirely in some instances? What assurances will the minister give that taxpayers' money will not be used to assist more landlords to exempt themselves from the rent review process?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, upon application by the individual who wishes to do the renovation and upgrading he will very clearly indicate his intentions, how he is to use the money and the category in which the rents will then be established after the renovation is completed.

Mr. Philip: Is the minister saying he will have the landlord sign a legal waiver, then, of his rights under section 128 of the Residential Tenancies Act and regulation 9 of that act? What monitoring is he going to have so that landlords will not be using this public funding to get out of rent review?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, we will be indicating the allocation of the funds very clearly in the application form. I hope members realize the $7,500 will not likely cover all the renovations and upgrading that will be required in some structures. I am sure that is obvious to most around this House. The fact is the individual owner will have a cash flow position in it, as will as the government of the province, with a repayment at a time in the future.

As we did with the Ontario rental construction loan program, we will establish the in-rent at the completion of the renovation. Exactly as we did in the ORCL program where we established the in-rent, the balance of the operation will be monitored on an annual basis. But we do not intend to get involved on a continuing basis in trying to regulate the rents in those structures.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, has the minister put a limit on the amount of money he is going to subscribe to this program? If it is all used up is he prepared to put additional funds into it?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, we have put a limit of about $9 million on it but the program has a degree of flexibility. If there is a greater take-up in the program than we originally projected, as the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) said back about May 14 if further funding is required to expand that program or any of the other housing programs we have been involved in under the recent announcement on Challenge 2000, then the funds will be allocated for that.

TAX BURDEN

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) or whoever wants to answer for him. Probably nobody does.

Mr. Speaker: I think the member will have to direct his question to a particular minister.

Mr. McKessock: Since no one has jumped up to answer for the Treasurer I will ask the Deputy Premier. I want to appeal to him, as one reasonable man to another, to drop the sales tax on school cafeterias, amateur athletic association booths, church and community centre associations. I wonder if he realizes what this sales tax is doing to them.

For example, in a school in my area, Grey Highlands Secondary School in Flesherton, which has 1,000 students, there are about 600 who go through the cafeteria line in two 40-minute periods a day, or about 300 people in 30 minutes. The cashiers can tell at a glance how much the tray is worth. Now that they are going to have to stop and figure out the seven per cent it is really going to tie up that line. They are going to have to double the lunch period in order to get through. Also, if the Treasurer goes through with this, the school will have to buy new cash registers, at $1,000 apiece, to figure out and record the tax.

Would the Treasurer therefore consider dropping the sales tax on school cafeterias and amateur athletic associations?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer has not communicated to me that he has plans to make any changes in the statement he made in the House.

As I was listening to an answer given earlier to a question directed by the deputy leader of the third party to the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) it seemed to me I heard the minister indicate there was some practical way to overcome some of the difficulties to which the member made reference. This was by posting the prices with tax included in order to avoid a second calculation. The member may wish to review the answer which the Minister of Revenue gave to the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) dealing with the practical application of that matter.

Mr. McKessock: Does the minister mean adding another 25 or 50 cents so that it is easier to calculate?

It seems to me the minister is going all out to disturb volunteers. It is awfully hard to get volunteers at a ball game. Now that they are going to have to figure the tax and remit it, it is going to make it that much tougher.

What about church and community associations which put on a supper for $7, where most of the food is donated by volunteers? How is one going to figure out how much is taxable and how much is not?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Revenue also handled that question earlier in the question period.

The government is well aware of the tremendous contribution which thousands of volunteers make in this jurisdiction. It is because of that type of involvement that those people will understand the commitments that are made for the ongoing programs of government require certain resources. The Premier (Mr. Davis) expanded on those needs in his answers to questions on Thursday and Friday of last week.

FRANCO-ONTARIAN SCHOOL TRUSTEES

Mr. Cassidy: Monsieur le président, j'ai une question à poser au ministre de l'Education. I have a question of the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the report of the Joint Committee on the Governance of French-Language Elementary and Secondary Schools which was tabled in the House a few days ago.

Since this report calls for electoral changes that include allowing Franco-Ontarians to elect their own trustees in school boards across Ontario, could the minister say what portions of the report the government intends to see implemented in time for this fall's municipal elections? What are the specific plans of the ministry with respect to changes in the school boards in Ottawa-Carleton affecting Franco-Ontarians?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the report has been widely distributed. After there has been response to it, in due course, when the decisions have been made about those changes which must be implemented, the member will be informed.

3 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Since this session will go on only until late June or early July, is it the minister's intention that the necessary legislation which would affect the municipal elections will be brought forward, or does the government intend to let the question of more adequate representation of Franco-Ontarians in the school systems of the province slide for another three years?

If that is the minister's intention, will she at least undertake to accept the recommendations for strengthening the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario which are contained in the report?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The answer to the middle question is no, and the answer to the final question is that we are awaiting the informed responses of those who have had an opportunity to read this report.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, regardless of what part of the report is adopted, will the minister acknowledge to this House that this report is only one step to the ultimate goal we hope to have as a francophone community, which is French-language school boards for this province?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the committee that drafted the report made that clear.

HYDRO EXPANSION

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Will the minister confirm that Ontario Hydro's grandiose expansion program calls for the construction of a new post-Darlington 3,400 megawatt nuclear station which Ontario Hydro identified in its submission to the National Energy Board on the General Public Utilities export application as E-15, and which is scheduled to come on stream between 1993 and 1997?

Is Ontario Hydro's commitment of $1.5 million to studies on the construction of this plant being carried out under the direction of the government? What area of the province is being investigated for this purpose?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the question is that there is no plan to go beyond Darlington at the moment.

Mr. Kerrio: Ontario Hydro's commitment of $1.5 million to studies is a real commitment. I wonder where it is going to direct that commitment if it is not for the purpose of studying expansion in the nuclear field.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If the member will re-examine his question, he asked me to confirm if there were plans to build beyond Darlington and I say there are no plans to build beyond Darlington. If the member is now asking whether there are certain investigations with respect to what possible options there may be to meet future demand requirements, I think the member and most of us would be encouraged to know that type of consideration is being done.

Mr. Kerrio: For export?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am answering the member's question quite straightforwardly. There are at the moment no committed plans beyond Darlington.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, since the government has indicated at least an open- mindedness on the proposition of building nuclear plants dedicated to export, is it possible the study of another plant is for that purpose?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as the member will know, there has been no government policy statement with respect to the construction of a nuclear plant dedicated to export. In giving some thought to future plans, I suppose the whole question of export would be part of any consideration, but I repeat, there is no commitment with respect to a plant dedicated to export and there is no commitment at the moment to build beyond Darlington.

ENERGY FROM WASTE PROJECT

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. We have to keep him busy today. The minister will be aware that the government, and perhaps he himself, has received a request from the city of Toronto for support of the idea of building a refuse-burning plant on the Hearn site. Since this proposal falls four-square within the government policy of energy from waste and will assist Toronto in building its provision of steam energy in the central part of the city, what is the reason for the delay on the part of the government in responding to this request?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, the request has gone to Hydro. I think the city directed some communication to Hydro about May 12, if my memory serves me correctly. It is now waiting to hear from Hydro.

As the member will know, there is a tremendous commitment here with respect to the possibilities of the utilization of the proper technology to extract energy from waste. The city of Toronto has some plans with respect to combining the necessity of dealing with waste and providing some steam for the Toronto district heating system. It is my understanding they were even giving serious consideration to proceeding with that project at their own location.

At some time during those negotiations there was some suggestion of a cogeneration possibility, as the member has correctly pointed out, at the Hydro site for both steam and electricity purposes. The Toronto civic officials have asked Hydro now for some final determination as to whether or not Hydro is seriously considering that project. It is my understanding they have been assured by the chairman of Hydro that they will be hearing from Hydro before too long.

Mr. MacDonald: I think I am correct in my assertion that the government has received a request from the city of Toronto -- I know I am correct because I got it from the chairman of Hydro himself -- and that they are awaiting a policy direction from the government. Who is stalling? What is happening when the buck is being passed here?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I appreciate this opportunity for clarification. I certainly was not attempting to create the impression that we were shifting responsibility. It is my understanding there had been some correspondence, and I have received some correspondence as well, but what the city of Toronto is asking for is a response from Hydro as to its interest in the development of this particular facility at the Hearn plant.

OMISSION FROM ROAD MAP

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my constituent, the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Today, 7,100 citizens of the town of Acton have been insulted by the deliberate obliteration of the name of the town of Acton from this new province of Ontario road map which is scheduled for release at the end of June of this year.

I wonder if the minister can provide some sort of adequate explanation to those citizens as to why this town has been deliberately left off the map and will he take steps to have this map corrected before it is released?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, there is a number of inaccuracies in the honourable member's statement. First, I believe the map has already been released. I do not think there is anything about it being --

Mr. J. A. Reed: That information came from your office.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I listened to the honourable member. Will he have the courtesy to listen to me now?

Mr. J. A. Reed: Yes, I will.

Hon. Mr. Snow: To my knowledge, I believe the map has been released. It is the new map that is prepared and updated every year or two years. There was certainly no deliberate attempt to delete the community of Acton from the map. A very large number of smaller communities are not shown on the large-scale section of the map in the Golden Horseshoe area, which has a separate section of the map and which very explicitly shows the community of Acton.

I personally believe that a community the size of Acton should have been shown on the main map as well. I can assure the member that I will be discussing that with my staff. It was brought to my attention earlier this morning.

I am not going to throw out all the maps and reprint new ones. We have made mistakes in the past and we will correct them.

I remember, when I used to represent that great section of Halton, the small municipality of Glen Williams was removed from the map at that time. I know I initiated discussions with the former Minister of Highways who had Glen Williams put back on the map. We shall do the same for Acton.

Mr. J. A. Reed: The minister is then obviously not aware that his own ministry gave me that misinformation about the releasing of the map. It came from his own office.

I wonder if the minister is also aware the information his ministry is giving to the press is that the name was deliberately left off the map. The minister suggests that the names of a number of small communities have been deleted. This is a town of 7,100 people who have tried very hard to promote their town, they promote it in the press; and when people want to come to the town of Acton or look for it on a map if they are driving out there on a Sunday afternoon, they cannot even find it on this road map.

3:10 p.m.

Is the minister not also aware that on this blowup where he says the town of Acton is shown it is actually shown as a community the same size as places like Stewarttown, Glen Williams, Ballinafad and Norval, communities of 100 or 200 inhabitants? In fact, this is a town of 7,200 with its own identity. Will the minister at least have the new maps, the reprints, corrected?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I really do not think that deserves an answer. I have already answered it. I said the correction will be made at the next printing of the map. The honourable member did not have to go on and repeat everything he said before.

Technically I may disagree with some of my staff. They have a very technical reason: that the community of Acton is not a separate registered community any more, as I am sure the member knows. Regardless of that fact, the community of Acton is very well signed on the highways. On Highway 401, for instance, there are large signs showing Halton Hills, Georgetown and Acton. If one looks at the back of the map, as the member has probably never done, one will find that in the index it does show the location of the community of Acton. There is no attempt to miss the great town of Acton, which I know so well.

GASOLINE CREDIT CARD CHARGE

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister is aware, I am sure, that it is more than 18 months since Shell Canada and Texaco started assessing a one per cent penalty against gas retailers for gasoline paid for by credit card scrip. Of course, this transferred costs from the giant oil companies to service station operators and from them on to the consumers.

I am sure the minister is also aware that his predecessor, who sits on his left and is not with us today, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), blustered in his usual fashion and said he asked these oil companies "in the strongest possible terms" to rescind that charge. Of course, nothing has been done since then, and now Shell is proposing to raise that charge of one per cent to two per cent.

I understand that the minister is meeting with the Ontario Retail Gasoline Association in about two weeks. Is he going to tell them at that meeting that he will protect the retailers and consumers by legislating against such charges?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first of all, if I may comment on the member's remark about one of the previous ministers -- he referred to his blustering habits -- I like to feel that the minister usually tried to behave in a manner that matched the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Oh, you want a point of order? Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I thought one of the members opposite had a point of privilege to raise.

As the member for Welland-Thorold knows quite well, the ministry has held several mediation meetings between the retailers and the companies; he also knows very well that the legislation does not give us any legislative power to effect any changes; and he also knows that the Texaco dealers, who are involved in a similar controversy at the moment, currently have a court action going against Texaco.

He also clearly knows that at the request of the retailers I have agreed to meet with them to discuss their problem. What the outcome of that meeting will be I certainly cannot foretell, but I know that with his crystal ball the honourable member may be able to. I will carry on with that meeting and hear their views.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister not realize first of all that the court action in Windsor has nothing to do with this case? It has to do with agreements that had been signed previously and does not apply to the charges to most service station operators.

Does the minister not realize that in the United States this charge has increased from one to two to three to four per cent? That poor little company Exxon is charging three per cent; Amoco is charging four per cent: and legislation has been introduced in Michigan to deal with this matter and prohibit these charges. Why does the minister not show some leadership and do the same thing for the service station operators in this province?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting with the organization in two weeks to hear its views on these issues.

NIAGARA NURSES' DISPUTE

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour in regard to the strike of the public health nurses in Niagara. At this point, the minister will recognize that the strike has been on for a few weeks, that the residents of the Niagara Peninsula have been deprived of services which, while they are not classified as being of an emergency or acute nature, are certainly very valuable preventive health care services.

In view of the fact that there appears to be a definite impasse, is the minister prepared to intervene personally, or to have the very highest ranking civil service personnel within his ministry intervene, to bring the two sides together and end a strike that neither side wishes to have go on and that is certainly adversely affecting the public in our area of the province?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the honour- able member is bringing up a subject he brought to my attention a short while ago in the form of a letter. After receiving that letter I did discuss the matter with ministry officials, and I hope we will be taking appropriate steps shortly.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Treleaven from the standing committee on administration of justice reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Correctional Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Ministry administration program, $8,376,600; institutional program, $142,793,500; and community program, $33,486,200.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

GAS CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS ACT

Mr. Swart moved, seconded by Mr. Philip, first reading of Bill 128, An Act respecting Gas Credit Card Payments to Dealers.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, under this bill, producers, importers or refiners of petroleum products, or other persons who sell petroleum products at wholesale and issue credit cards to the public, will be prevented from making a charge or levying a discount against dealers because payment or part payment is made by credit card scrip.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 28(a), I would like to file dissatisfaction with the answer given to me by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), and I would like to debate it tomorrow night.

3:20 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

On vote 701, ministry administration program; item 1, main office.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, when we dealt with these estimates last Friday, I was talking about problems that confront our first citizens in northern Ontario in particular and the kind of response that I think should be forthcoming from the Ministry of Northern Affairs in dealing with those problems. I was about to talk about the moratorium on the exploitation of wild rice, which is a very important resource for providing an economic base for our native people in northern Ontario.

A number of questions have been asked of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) concerning this moratorium. It affects first citizens in northwestern Ontario in particular and in the Treaty 3 area. I know that the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) has been involved in this very sensitive and very important question for a number of years and was even more so, I suppose, when he had the responsibilities of the Minister of Natural Resources. I am sure that the minister, along with other colleagues, has been getting a series of questions from concerned and well-meaning citizens, not only from northern Ontario, not only from our native representatives but also from concerned citizens here in Metropolitan Toronto.

I want to quote from a letter that went to the Minister of Natural Resources with copies to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Henderson) and other elected members. I want to put it into the record just so that members of the committee will be aware of how important and how sensitive this issue is. The letter reads:

"Dear Mr. Minister: In December 1981 I wrote to you about this question as a member of the Ten Days Toronto East, a group which is concerned about the role of native people in the development of Ontario's wild rice industry. Now that a cabinet decision is imminent I am writing to ask again that you extend the five-year moratorium on granting licences to non-natives, which expires at the end of this growing season.

"Since this group was formed early in 1981, we have been in close contact with Indian leaders in the Treaty 3 area. Chief Peter Kelly and the present chief of Treaty 3's grand council, John Kelly, have urged us to do all we can to make known to people in our community the hopes that native people have for the wild rice industry and their fears that these will remain unrealized. I write, therefore, not as a southerner prescribing solutions for northerners but rather as a friend of Treaty 3 Indians, whose aspirations I support.

"The five-year moratorium has not given the Indians sufficient time to establish a viable industry, with integrated harvesting, processing and marketing branches, which could be the economic backbone of native communities; or even to see if such a goal is possible.

"Limited progress in advancing the native wild rice industry is not due to the Indians' lack of initiative or inefficiency. Rather, technological and financial assistance promised by the province has been minimal. Water levels in rice areas are still damaging crops because the Lake of the Woods water control board is far more interested in meeting the needs of powerful interest groups such as Manitoba Hydro and the tourist industry than in those of the wild rice industry. Specific requests for access to mechanical harvesters or money to buy seed rice have gone unheeded. Yields have, therefore, been unstable from one year to the next. Thus, it remains uneconomic to build the proposed native-owned processing plant, a step which would greatly increase the crop's value for Indians.

"You stressed in your letter of January 14, 1982, that as Minister of Natural Resources it is your duty to manage these resources to the benefit of all the people of Ontario. I believe, however, that Indians are entitled to special considerations with respect to this particular natural resource. Treaty 3 holds what they believe is the original version of that 1873 Treaty 3, the Paypom Document, which clearly states that 'the Indians shall be free as by the past, for the hunting, fishing and ricing.' Although the province's official published version of the treaty is less specific about ricing rights, I believe that the Paypom document is authentic and that it is our duty as a country to honour treaty rights made with our native people.

"Surely we can afford to do so! Wild rice is not a billion-dollar resource involving vast tracts of land. Wild rice has great cultural and religious significance for the Indians; it could be the basis of the best possible kind of economic development in native communities. With other traditional occupations, such as fishing and trapping, greatly reduced, the native wild rice industry remains perhaps the last hope for many Indians in the Treaty 3 area to get off welfare and into the mainstream economically. I am convinced that using the natural resources of wild rice to improve economic and social conditions in native communities is in my best interests as well as those of the Indians. As a citizen of Ontario I would be delighted to see this resource developed to the Indians' advantage.

"When the cabinet meets to decide what might be gained by extending the moratorium, I trust that this view will be considered fully. This decision will determine how Ontario's wild rice industry will evolve, and I remain hopeful that the province will treat our native people with honesty and justice.

"Your continued consideration of this question is much appreciated."

The letter is signed by Helen Whidden of 31 Arundel Avenue in Toronto.

I know the minister is well aware of the sensitivity of this problem, and I know that he has a friend who is in this business in Keewatin and who makes a very fine product, one that I continue to tout.

For anybody who wants to listen to me down here in southern Ontario, the wild rice product that Mr. Ratuski processes and markets is second to none anywhere in the world. As a matter of fact, the Americans keep blending it with their cultured rice and can be accused, I think, of misrepresentation. They mix it with their inferior quality and mark it, "genuine Canadian wild rice, native variety," or something like that.

I understand two companies in the United States, for all practical purposes, have corralled the wild rice market and have a stranglehold on it. I urge the minister to heed the advice of many people who have made representations to him and to me that we maximize the benefit of the wild rice industry for people in northern Ontario and, in particular, for native people.

I know this is something he has been grappling with for a number of years and, for whatever reasons, our first citizens, particularly in the Treaty 3 area, have not been able to maximize to its full potential that which might evolve from the orderly exploitation of our wild rice resources. I hope the minister will take that into account in his responsibilities as the Minister of Northern Affairs.

3:30 p.m.

Just to get something else out of the way, I listened with a great deal of interest to the statement made this afternoon by the Minister of Northern Affairs on northern employment incentives for people in unorganized areas; of course, this $500,000 under the isolated communities assistance fund is something that we welcome.

I hope the minister perhaps will be able to elaborate when he is responding to these opening remarks and tell us the criteria for eligibility for a lot of these community-oriented organizations, clubs and local service boards to come forward with proposals. I would like to know what kind of criteria will be used and what kind of programs will be required to qualify for this. I hope the minister will elaborate if he is able to do so at this time.

I am sorry that the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) is not here, because I want to follow up on some remarks I made about the Social Development policy field.

There are two or three very specific kinds of problems I want to raise with the Minister of Northern Affairs, because he has made statements recently to the media in northern Ontario indicating that he now thinks this ministry has matured enough and had a sense of what the Ministry of Northern Affairs should be so that he will get into the Social Development policy field in a very meaningful and much more effective way than has been the case in the past.

The minister has been very active in setting up the northern air ambulance service. That was done under the auspices of his ministry in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, and it is working reasonably well. I am sure that if the minister and his minions talk to Dr. Dyer, who has responsibility for administering that program on behalf of the Ministry of Health, he will tell them there are still several bugs to be ironed out of the system and it should be broadened specifically to meet the special and unique needs of the client group from northern Ontario.

I want to quote from a letter that I wrote to Dr. Dyer. It is too early for me to have received a response yet, because it was just sent out on May 26. It is quite current. I am sure that it is symptomatic of the problems facing families in northern Ontario with special and unique needs for services that are not available in northern Ontario. Let me quote from the letter that I wrote to Dr. Dyer, which explains precisely what I am talking about. I said I was writing on behalf of a family in Longlac. I will not give the name.

"Their seven-year-old son ... is a victim of papilloma. He suffers from recurring polyps growing in his throat. He previously had the polyps removed in Thunder Bay until he was eventually referred to Dr. Fearon, at the sick children's hospital in Toronto, who removed the polyps with a laser system.

"However, previous operations have left severe scar tissue, and this seven-year-old patient has undergone a tracheotomy on March 14, 1982. He must return to sick children's hospital June 6, hopefully for removal of the tubes.

"This child on previous occasions has been rushed by air ambulance to a hospital as an emergency patient. However, if the child is not choking he must travel by normal transportation. The air fare is $442 return to Thunder Bay as this patient cannot travel by himself and his mother must accompany him. He cannot travel on this occasion by train as the trip is somewhat long -- 18 hours approximately -- and it would be virtually impossible with the tracheotomy equipment.

"The tracheotomy equipment costs $40 a month to rent, along with extra costs for suction tubes. As well, this family have a mortgage on their home for which they pay $350 a month plus another $200 for upkeep, such as heat, light and telephone. You can well imagine that the heating and hydro costs are exorbitant during winter months in northwestern Ontario.

"Were this family living closer to Toronto, it would not be such a travesty. However, the expenses involved are creating a real hardship financially as the father is unemployed, along with most others in the woods industry.

"This young patient has required attention by a specialist every two months since 1981.

"I hope you and your policy advisers will give special attention to the plight of this family who through no fault of their own have encountered this health problem and who are not responsible for these bad economic times."

This case runs parallel with another one, in Terrace Bay, which I brought to Dr. Dyer's attention more than a year ago.

"This situation is compounded by a very unfortunate quirk of the administration of the food and drug directorate in Ottawa, as Dr. Fearon is not allowed to use a medication he strongly believes would alleviate the recurrence of the polyps." A service club in Geraldton has made a small financial contribution to assist. However, there is nothing that is going to assist the family to have the child return to the Hospital for Sick Children on June 6.

I am asking Dr. Dyer to see whether he cannot prevail upon the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) to accept that where the service is not available in a person's home community or in any of the major centres, including Thunder Bay, and the person has to travel at considerable expense all the way down to Toronto, particularly to the Hospital for Sick Children, that charge should be a legitimate charge against the Ontario health insurance plan and the delivery of a proper health system to people in northern Ontario.

I am sure the minister can trot out a lot of his own cases where residents of northern Ontario, who pay the same OHIP premiums as anybody else in the province, are subjected to these very expensive charges just so their children and members of their families in general can get the proper treatment. We take it for granted down here in southern Ontario, where most of the population is in this heavily urbanized society we are in, that they can get that treatment. But, as the minister well knows, the Ministry of Health says the only way in which a family can have those charges paid through the OHIP system is if a person is in a hospital in the north and is transferred directly from a hospital in the north to a hospital down here; otherwise, it is not a legitimate charge.

3:40 p.m.

In talking to a lot of the doctors who know of the financial plight of many people in similar circumstances, one finds that the temptation is very great for a doctor in northern Ontario to say, "I know you cannot afford the service; so what we will do is take your child away from home care and admit him to a hospital. As soon as you have done that, then you order an ambulance and fly the child to Toronto." If one is transferring a child from a northern hospital to a southern hospital, it is a legitimate charge against OHIP and the ambulance system; but if he is not hospitalized in the north, it is the responsibility of the individual family. It is working a particular hardship.

I have another health-related matter that I want to bring to the minister's attention. It has to do with the inadequacy of the health delivery system, even in the city of Thunder Bay.

I will not mention any names, but I want to quote from a doctor, a specialist in Thunder Bay. I heard that a constituent of mine was going to have to be hospitalized in Thunder Bay, occupying an active treatment bed at a rate in the neighbourhood of $200 a day. It was a legitimate charge against OHIP, because of the inability of hospitals in Thunder Bay to program the surgery within a reasonable length of time. The individual, who was having severe problems with arthritis, is awaiting hip replacement surgery. She is second on the doctor's urgent list.

Dr. Hamilton has a standing offer with the Port Arthur General Hospital that he will cancel an office visit at any time to do one of these urgent hip operations. Until my intervention, she was scheduled to stay in an active treatment bed in St. Joseph's General Hospital in Thunder Bay until she could be referred, for this urgent surgery, to the Port Arthur General Hospital. Does the minister know the charge against the OHIP system for keeping somebody in an active treatment bed for up to three months?

Apparently, they could not release her. They transferred her back to the Terrace Bay hospital. I visited the hospital this weekend and was told that, all things being equal, they were going to be able to reschedule her from August 5 to some time next week, unless something more urgent comes up in the interim.

I said to the doctor at the hospital, "Does it not make more sense for you to spend some of your funds so that you can pay the anaesthetist and the specialist and you can have sufficient operating theatres to do that work rather than hospitalize somebody for three months?" He said: "That is the nature of the system. If we just hospitalize somebody for a period of three months it is a legitimate charge against OHIP, and that does not cost us anything in financial terms. But if we have to pay somebody, such as an anaesthetist, to come in at seven o'clock at night, and we have to have operating staff during off hours, that comes out of the hospital budget, and you know the nature of hospital budgets these days."

I said, "That does not make any sense at all." There are ample funds for funding active treatment beds, but if one wants to give emergency surgery to somebody, unless he is at death's door, they just leave them languishing in an active treatment bed at a cost of up to $200 a day.

I said to this doctor that this was just an intolerable situation and, as an elected member, I thought I had a responsibility to bring this to the attention of people in the Ministry of Health; so I asked him to write me a letter. I have a quote from that letter from this excellent and dedicated specialist. I will not read it all.

He said: "I would also emphasize that the delay in her hip surgery has nothing to do with the recent, periodic cancellations of elective surgery with regard to the fee negotiations between the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario government. Dr. Hamilton's bookings were already in this range. Equally, you can be assured that no one with this degree of problems would have been cancelled in this situation in any event.

"Our primary difficulty at the moment is our lack of anaesthetists. Accordingly, it is difficult to run as many operating rooms as we would like. Attempts were made several months ago to stretch out the operating room day to accommodate cases" -- such as this one -- "which were very urgent but certainly not emergencies. This resulted in increasingly long hours for the operating room staff and a number of resignations ultimately. Of course, there is a significant burden to the hospital when they call in full operating room staff for this type of surgery in terms of overtime costs.

"While it seems ironic that much more money will be spent ultimately by this patient being hospitalized until the surgery can be booked, the cost of the bed is already covered by any hospital's global budget. On the other hand, overtime costs that are incurred by off-time booking of the operating room are unforeseen costs which end in hospital deficits."

Does the minister see what I mean? Just because of the formula that has been arrived at for reimbursing hospitals, it is costing us in many cases two or three times as much as to spend a little money on overtime and staffing of operating theatres. There is no money for that, but somebody can be kept in an active treatment bed for literally two or three months because that is a legitimate charge.

I do not know what the good doctor, the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), is saying. Maybe she agrees that there has to be a better way of doing it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The hospital can do it if it wishes to.

Mr. Stokes: That is right -- if the government would just be a little more flexible.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not us, it is the hospital that has to be more flexible.

Mr. Martel: Why are you always picking on the hospitals?

Mr. Stokes: It is not the hospital. Here is what the doctor suggests --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Is the doctor the administrator of the hospital? Is he the chief of the services?

Mr. Stokes: No.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Then I suggest he doesn't know.

Mr. Stokes: I know that he talked to the administrator of the hospital because when I heard they were keeping this patient in an active treatment bed waiting for elective surgery that was scheduled for August 5 or 6, I said, "This is absolutely ludicrous." I phoned the hospital administrator and said: "Tell me why you are doing this. Why does it have to be that way?"

He said, "Let me talk to the doctor, and either I will get back to you or the doctor will get back to you." So the doctor got back to me.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: There is no reason for them doing it that way -- certainly not the reasons advanced.

Mr. Stokes: Would the Minister of Education like to tell me? I will yield the floor and she can tell me how we can do it.

Mr. Chairman: You got into this. You might as well get out of it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: These are not my estimates.

Mr. Chairman: Then why don't you be quiet?

Mr. Stokes: No. We let you babble on for 15 minutes.

Mr. Chairman: That is right. Absolutely.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: If the good doctor has something to add to this --

Mr. Breaugh: If she has a quick fix to this let's hear it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The administrator only has to talk to the appropriate branch of the Ministry of Health, and they can get it sorted out.

Mr. Stokes: They have been trying, believe me. Does the minister know Sister Winnifred, the administrator of St. Joseph's Hospital? She is no novice. She probably knows more about administering hospitals than the minister or I will ever know.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Oh yes, much more than I do.

Mr. Stokes: Okay. Here is what the doctor said:

"Studied cutbacks in specialists' training on the part of the government are self-defeating in so far as northern Ontario is concerned. We already have difficulty attracting specialists and we will have even more difficulty if the numbers being trained are cut back. This obviously applies to areas such as anaesthesia.

"There are always going to be a limited number of physicians who are willing to go into northern Ontario since we are, in general, an increasingly urban country and Canadians tend to live more predominantly in the southern parts of the country which are more urbanized. Many provinces in Canada have northern areas equivalent to northern Ontario and we are in competition to attract these doctors. All the other things being equal, if Ontario continues to fall behind in its fee schedule for physicians, we are going to be at an increasing disadvantage. While I recognize that the recent settlement with the Ontario government has improved the situation, we must look to keeping this funding at an equivalent level with other provinces.

"If the present trend towards diminishing amounts of our gross national product -- or gross provincial product -- being devoted to health care continues, we are increasingly going to have inadequate facilities. Equally, physicians are attracted to areas where they feel they have the equipment to do the work and this will also cause us to be unable to attract manpower.

"Of course, should we get adequate medical manpower, the hospitals are obviously going to have to have funding to run the backup services required. In other words, no matter how many anaesthetists we have, if the hospital reaches the limit of its global budget and cannot hire more nurses and open more operating rooms, we are going to be no further ahead. Equally, if no beds are available in which to put the patients, even if the operating room space is available, we are no further ahead.

"Finally, with particular reference to Thunder Bay, the fragmentation of care among three different hospitals has not permitted us to build medical services in the way we should. The recommendation by a recent hospital role study, and endorsed by the Thunder Bay Medical Society, that a new single, acute therapy hospital should be built for this city, would certainly answer many of the difficulties."

I am not an expert in the delivery of health services, but I know that when a constituent of mine has to wait in an active treatment bed for three months for emergency surgery, there is obviously something wrong.

I want to get into another area of the health delivery system. The only reason I am going on at length about this is that I know the minister and the ministry have accepted responsibility in the social policy field, through his mandate as facilitator and co-ordinator to bring to the attention of other line ministries this need. In many instances, other than my doing it using this vehicle, I think we absolutely have to have a co-ordinating presence in northern Ontario.

I want to raise another problem, in the dental health field. This is a letter I received from a Catholic priest who is responsible for the communities of Armstrong, Gull Bay and Savant Lake. It is addressed to the district manager of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Thunder Bay and reads as follows:

"Dear Mr. Bannon:

"I write you to ask if the Department of Indian Affairs can do anything to allow native dental therapists to practise in Ontario and also to allow the School of Dental Therapy to come to Thunder Bay.

"The enclosed letter by Dr. Keith Davey gives the background of what I am writing about. There is a School of Dental Therapy in Fort Smith, NWT, that wished to relocate in Thunder Bay. Confederation College was willing to have them. They were opposed and blocked by the Ontario Dental Association. As pointed out by Dr. Davey, the position of the ODA does not seem to be reasonable. The School of Dental Therapy graduates only about 10 students a year. The native dental therapists are trained to work with the native people and will live on the reserves. They are trained to teach preventive dental care to native adults and children -- which they can do in the native language -- pull teeth and put in fillings. They spend three years doing this training. They do not do caps or root canal jobs but refer these to dentists.

"I have worked with the native people for 12 years in Gull Bay, Armstrong, Savant Lake and Longlac, and I have noticed that there is a great need for better dental care among the native people. So I find it very frustrating to see some native people trying to do something and then see them being blocked."

He refers to a dental therapist who was originally from Gull Bay and who wanted to come back and provide this service, but it is against the law to do that in Ontario. He goes on to mention a lot of names and what he is doing, but I have given the gist of what he says. The letter is signed by Brian Tiffin, who is a Jesuit priest from Armstrong.

I wrote to the Minister of Health about this problem and received a letter back from John C. Gillies of the ODA -- I had sent a copy of it to them. I still have not received a response from the Minister of Health even though I wrote on March 24.

Here is what the dental association said:

"I have received a copy of your March 24 letter to the Honourable Larry Grossman regarding dental services in the Armstrong area.

"I think there are two separate issues involved. One is the provision of dental service in the area and the other is the employment of dental therapists in Ontario.

"The matter of the relocation of the School of Dental Therapy has been the subject of discussion for the past several years. The basic problem is that there is no legal provision in Ontario for the practise of that particular occupation. The federal Minister of National Health and Welfare had, I believe, received advice from her solicitors that Ontario statutes clearly prohibit the practice of dentistry by persons other than those specified in the regulations under the Health Disciplines Act. I believe that arrangements are being finalized to relocate the school to Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.

"As you are aware, the provision of dental care to remote areas of Ontario has been a high priority of our association for some time. We have a number of areas of activity operating. We have been able to encourage members to establish dental practices in a number of communities in northern Ontario in the past two years. We have worked with the Ministry of Health to establish special facilities in Pickle Lake. We have responded to ministry initiatives regarding new criteria for the placement of mobile dental coaches which provide dental care to children and have supported government funding of a special project on a pilot basis in the Kenora-Rainy River area.

4 p.m.

"It is possible that arrangements could be made to provide routine care to adults on a periodic basis in areas where the establishment of a full-time dental practice is not feasible. I believe that Armstrong could fit into this category and I am sure the minister will keep you informed of progress as it is made."

The minister has not even answered the letter I wrote him back in March.

"We are also finalizing our arrangements with Health and Welfare Canada regarding the deployment of dentists to Indian reserves in Ontario. We expect to assume responsibility for administering a program whereby the ODA would send members to specific communities on a routine basis to provide dental care to all persons in the area. The primary focus would be to provide care to treaty status Indians, but all residents will be served.

"These arrangements are being made through an ongoing dialogue with the medical services branch of Health and Welfare Canada, representatives of Grand Council Treaty 9 and the ODA.

"We share your feeling of urgency and to some degree frustration that these matters take so long to put into place. Please be assured that we are moving as fast as we can on this, but I'm sure that you are aware of the difficulties in establishing any programs that require the close co-operation of a number of different ministries, at two levels of government, and several voluntary bodies as well.

"To the best of my knowledge all parties are truly interested in seeing this matter accomplished and we hope to see some results in the near future."

It is signed by John C. Gillies of the Ontario Dental Association.

This is where the minister comes in. We want you to cut out the bureaucracy and the red tape. The Ontario Dental Association says there is a problem and it wants to address it. Our own Ministry of Health says there is a problem and it wants to address itself to it. National Health and Welfare is saying the same thing but, because of the bureaucracy and the red tape, nothing of any consequence gets done. That is what I tried to refer to in my opening remarks about the responsibility of this ministry to fill the void, cut out the bureaucracy and get on with filling what we all believe is a very vital need.

I want to get into something else and it has to do with the task force on the high cost of transportation and the high cost of living in northern Ontario, particularly in those communities north of the 50th parallel.

This minister and the Premier (Mr. Davis), I think as a result of my urging over a number of years, have taken on the responsibility of putting a task force in place to look into the high cost of consumer goods in northern Ontario areas which are accessible only by air. The air carriers serve all those communities well known to the minister and I, stretching from the Manitoba border over to the Quebec border and north of the 50th parallel.

I do know that Mr. R. Wycliffe and other civil servants representing a variety of ministries are looking seriously into those problems of high transportation costs resulting in gasoline selling for as much as $5 a gallon in many of those communities in the north. It can cost up to $2 for a loaf of bread, $2.50 for a dozen eggs, 50 cents for an apple and 50 cents for an orange. It can cost up to $3 for a little can of oil to mix with the gasoline for power motor boats and snow machines which native people use in following their traditional lifestyle of hunting, fishing and trapping.

For very valid reasons, on initiatives and programs sponsored by the federal and provincial governments, we subsidize every air traffic ticket right across Canada by the way in which we subsidize the operation of our airports. We subsidize the cost of travel on norOntair. We know, because of the acceptance of that service which has grown dramatically over the last 10 years that where it used to cost us in the neighbourhood of $75 every time somebody bought a ticket to travel on a norOntair flight, because of patronage that has been extended to the norOntair service, it is now down to between $5 and $6. The cost to the taxpayer generally in subsidizing one of those flights is now between $5 and $6, as opposed to the $75 that it once cost.

It is an essential service, one that assists northerners in getting from one community to another. It assists businessmen in getting into these communities. It cuts down the travel time dramatically. It is a good service, it is one that is very widely used, and it is an excellent use of public funds.

In our wisdom we also subsidize 75 per cent of all the capital costs for urban transportation systems, whether they be in Metropolitan Toronto, Ottawa, Windsor or Thunder Bay. In the way in which we order our priorities down here in this assembly when spending the $20 billion of taxpayers' money that we do, and such as we are asking for in these estimates, we think it is legitimate to pay Metropolitan Toronto for 75 per cent of their capital costs to provide public transportation.

There is a formula that is also used whereby we are very generous in subsidizing the operating costs of these public transportation systems. We also have another system put in place by the federal government, where they have absolved our two common carriers, Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways, of the responsibility for moving passengers wherever they want to go in Canada. They have set up an arm's-length crown corporation called Via Rail. I do not know the exact figures, but I am sure it is costing us about a half a billion dollars a year in operating subsidies, just to provide this so-called essential service for all Canadians who, for whatever reason, choose to travel by train in this great country of ours.

The Honourable Jean-Luc Pepin, the federal Minister of Transport, announced -- and the minister knows very well the furor that was created by that announcement -- he was going to rationalize the rail transportation system for moving people in Canada. We know what happened in many northern communities where now, in that area where he and I have responsibility, along the north line of the CNR, there is no such thing as the supercontinental train any more. That went by the boards. We have a little wee jitney that runs three times a week to serve the communities like Sioux Lookout, like Savant Lake --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They all support the federal Liberal members.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, you tell me about it. We have wall-to-wall Liberals federally in the north; and frankly, I do not know what they do.

Mr. Ruston: They must do something right, because they keep getting elected.

Mr. Stokes: They continually get elected and the Minister of Northern Affairs --

Mr. Van Horne: Can you tell me why they elect Conservatives in the north?

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: The Minister of Northern Affairs and I spend more than 50 per cent of our time looking after federal problems. I could be unkind and read some letters into the record if I was provoked to do so by the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) or the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne)

Mr. Van Horne: I'll provoke you enough to --

Mr. Ruston: Feel free. It is a democratic system.

Mr. Stokes: It would make very interesting reading.

Mr. Hodgson: Try one, Jack.

Mr. Stokes: It would make very interesting reading. I have them provoked.

Interjections.

Mr. Stokes: On Friday I referred, briefly, to a situation in which I paid tribute to the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Ramsay) and the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey). Mr. Ramsay at the time was Provincial Secretary for Resources Development and Mr. McCaffrey is the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. It had to do with a natural disaster in a community in the far north of Ontario, caused by high tides and winds. They lost all of the equipment they had.

I made representations to the appropriate people in the province and at that time they said, "No, we cannot do it." I made appropriate representations to Ottawa and they said, "No, we cannot do it." I said, "To hell you can't; somebody is going to do something." So I wrote a long letter to this government and finally got a commitment for $12,000 of the $22,000 that was needed.

Once I received this commitment from Mr. Ramsay and Mr. McCaffrey I went to the feds and said: "This is primarily a federal responsibility, but here is what the province has done in good faith. Come on, you guys, pull up your breeches and come up with the balance," which was $10,000.

The federal member became involved, and he asked: "What is going on here? Will you please send me your file on it so I can get working on it?" So I did, and I received a letter, dated May 12, on the letterhead of the House of Commons, reading as follows:

"Dear Jack:

"Thank you very much for your courtesy in sending me the correspondence you have had over the question of the disaster relief for the Fort Severn Reserve. I note that as a result of your efforts, on April 16, 1982, a special grant of $12,000 was sent by the Ontario government, which is a substantial amount of money.

"I have taken this matter up with the Department of Indian Affairs and they have indicated that they do not have any funds for that purpose since they feel they are not in the insurance business. I am sorry that we have been unable to be successful in this matter."

It was signed by the member for Kenora--Rainy River.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What is his name?

Mr. Stokes: John Reid.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That's Pat Reid's brother.

Mr. Stokes: That was on May 12. Then, under date of May 13, I received the following letter:

"Dear Mr. Stokes:

"Thank you very much for your letter of March 23, regarding my department's financial assistance to the Fort Severn Indian band for the replacement of their fishing and hunting equipment.

"I am pleased to inform you that my district officers are meeting with the band members to arrange for the compensation in an amount not to exceed $10,000.

"Yours sincerely,

"John C. Munro."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Who is he?

Mr. Stokes: He is their minister of northern affairs.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: John who?

Mr. Stokes: Munro.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That comes under John Parry's jurisdiction.

Mr. MacDonald: It sounds as though John Reid is on the outside looking in.

Mr. Stokes: Just to put things in perspective -- where was I when I was so rudely interrupted?

Mr. Van Horne: You were about to be provoked.

Mr. Stokes: As a matter of fact --

Mr. Ruston: They cannot guarantee money in the pocket here when they say they are going to give it either, Jack. I have a letter right here, signed by the minister -- $960,000. Now they say they are entitled to $90,000. We cannot trust them over there.

Mr. Stokes: Let me add a little codicil to that. I got a call Friday afternoon from Fort Severn saying, "Where is our $12,000 from the province?" My secretary phoned the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. They said, "We took it over and we gave it to the member," who is presumably me. I had not seen it. I have only one assistant and I said, "Did you see it?"

They said: "But we sent somebody over with the cheque. That person looked inside your office and there was nobody there." I do not know whether Cynthia is listening downstairs -- I hope she is on the squawk box -- but I will tell you what happened.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Who has a squawk box?

Mr. Stokes: Let me tell you what happened to the cheque. They were going to bring it over to my office and there was nobody there, so they sent the messenger along with it and said, "Let's send it up by Purolator."

Do you know what Purolator service would have to do to get that cheque to Fort Severn? Have you any idea? I see Bill Charlton laughing, I see Dennis Tieman laughing and I see the minister laughing. Nobody else really understands what the logistics would be of sending a cheque, or anything for that matter, by way of Purolator all the way to Fort Severn. Do not ever try to send anything to Fort Severn by Purolator, please.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: You are laughing. You are going to have to pay for the taxi.

Mr. Stokes: Do you know what happened?

The cheque arrived in my office this morning for the second time.

Mr. Ruston: By Purolator.

Mr. Stokes: No, it was delivered by hand in its original envelope. It had a window in it. Do you know what was on it? It said "From the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture" upon the left hand. Do you know what it had in the window? It had, "Fort Severn Band." That was the only address and the only instruction. That poor Purolator courier was supposed to get that cheque --

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: He's beat; he's not worth a damn today.

Mr. Stokes: I said: "All right, I know where the $12,000 is. Bruce McCaffrey came through as he said he would. Everything is fine and dandy." I phoned Sioux Lookout; to John Parry, the superintendent of Indian affairs and was told, "He is busy; he is not available." I made about three calls. I was told, "He is still on the phone."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Why didn't you phone John Munro's office?

Mr. Stokes: Just wait a minute.

Mr. Ruston: Just hold your horses.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, just wait.

The lady on the phone said, "Is there anything I can do for you?" I went through this long rigmarole saying, "I have a letter from your minister saying they are going to talk with your district office and they have agreed to come up with $10,000 to satisfy this need."

What happened next? I phoned back just before coming into the House at two o'clock and they said, "Oh no, he is away to lunch." There is an hour's time difference between Sioux Lookout and Toronto, even though --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The expression is, "He is out to lunch."

Mr. Stokes: You can believe he was out to lunch.

I said: "It is not necessary that I talk to John Parry. Just give me an economic development officer and I am sure he will be more than happy to carry out the instructions of the minister. John Munro."

She said: "I have no recollection of any instructions like that coming in. I know they did not meet with anybody from Fort Severn last week, and I know they are not going to meet with anybody from Fort Severn this week because they are down in southern Ontario on a special course for economic development officers."

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Stoney was in Thunder Bay. I was sitting with him at the bar.

Mr. Stokes: Jack Stoney?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Jack Stoney's cousin, Archie.

Mr. Stokes: Archie.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Archie Stoney.

Mr. Stokes: There is an all-chiefs meeting down here out at the airport hotel and I am trying to get hold of him. Ennis Crowe is the chief, and Ennis Crowe is at this --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Why didn't you phone John Munro?

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Why should I phone John Munro?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Why shouldn't you?

Mr. Stokes: Maybe I want to give those people the benefit of the doubt. I cannot get hold of anybody in Indian Affairs to tell me whether they are aware of the instructions put out by the Ministry of Northern Affairs. It just goes to show how much time we elected members in northern Ontario spend running around trying to grease the wheels of power to get something done on a request as reasonable and justified as this. These are the kinds of things this ministry can do to cut out the red tape.

I want to ask the minister how many hours of his time and his staffs time is spent dealing with unemployment insurance commission problems? The minister's Northern Affairs officers, wherever they are located throughout the province, have taken on that responsibility. It is an excellent service. I do not know whether the minister spends any time on the phone calling the special number in the Manpower and Immigration offices in Thunder Bay. They gave us a number where we are dealt with by somebody who cuts through the red tape. They have a little computer and they can punch a few numbers and at least give the status of the claim.

I do not think it is enough for this ministry just to provide that service. It has to make an analysis of the problems it is continually faced with and say, "This is how we can improve our system."

Let me tell the minister that these layoffs in the woodlands industry, where they lay off 400 or 500 at a time, involve 400 or 500 individual applications, 400 or 500 separation notices and all the bureaucracy that entails. I had one employer who had the temerity to suggest, when papers were filled out for all these people, that the expected recall date would be May 3. This was fed into the computer, and when May 3 came along, 500 employees were cut off.

My secretary gets all these calls asking: "What are they doing? I have not been called back. This is the first time I have collected unemployment insurance in 10 years. I collected it for four or five weeks and they cut me off. Why?" We do not know why, but we will find out. It all goes back to what the employer said about the expected recall date; and some of those people are not back to work yet. Some of them did go back, but none went back on May 3. Some went back on May 10 and some are still not back to work, but they are not getting any unemployment insurance benefits. That is the frustrating thing.

I know the minister is not responsible for UIC programs and benefits, but Northern Affairs officers have to deal with these things on a regular basis. It makes no sense to have me spending my valuable time covering up for other people who are incompetent. It makes no sense to have 28 or 29 Northern Affairs officers dealing with these very aggravating problems when there is a realistic and intelligent way of approaching the problem. Tell Axworthy down there that his system is not working and tell him why it is not working. God knows I have tried only the client group a favour, not only Canada Manpower a favour, but ourselves and our staff a favour. After all, that is what service is all about. I think the ministry and this minister have some responsibility in that regard.

I have gone on a lot longer than I had expected but I just wanted to --

Is the Minister of Education enjoying it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes.

Mr. Stokes: Okay. Maybe I will be provoked to carry on a little bit longer then.

Interjections.

Mr. Stokes: Why do you not come up to the north and see all these problems at first hand?

Interjections.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, you did not invite me, for some strange reason.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I didn't. I thought it was safer not to.

Mr. Ruston: We have a quorum in here; that is something. Look at all the Tories over there:

13 of them today; that's a lot bigger than last Thursday night.

Mr. Hodgson: You should talk about a quorum; you only had one member in the other night.

Mr. Ruston: That's right Bill.

Mr. Stokes: I want to deal with something else. I know the minister has been running around talking about hydro rates --

Mr. Ruston: If I had brought in a budget like that, Bill, I wouldn't want to be here either.

Mr. Stokes: Have you got something to say?

Mr. Ruston: Excuse me.

Mr. Stokes: I know the minister has been running around talking about hydro rates and the iniquitous effect the proposed rate increases for hydro services will have on northerners. You will pay more per unit in the winter months than you will in the summer months. We pay more in northern Ontario because of the climate, and because of the way we use hydro services. We use hydro primarily to keep warm, to heat water and to shed a little bit of light on the subject, whatever that is. For that we get a kick in the teeth.

In the sunnier climes of southern Ontario, in the summer months you are more apt to use hydro to heat your swimming pools, to run your air conditioning or to make more ice cubes for your cold drinks -- all of the reasons people use hydro in Metropolitan Toronto during the summer months just so they can be more comfortable and pander to this elegant living that you have become so used to; and for that you get a reduction.

But when it comes to us, to heating our hot water and keeping our homes warm in northern Ontario, we get a kick in the teeth. My colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) raised this on March 30. Members know the answers he got from the Deputy Premier and Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch), and we are no closer to resolving it.

I know the minister cannot stand up here as the Minister of Northern Affairs and ask the Minister of Energy what is going on with regard to the discriminatory hydro rates that are being imposed on users in northern Ontario. I do not doubt he talks to him privately and around the cabinet table; I do know he speaks very openly about the very thing that concerned my colleague from Sudbury East on March 30.

But we would like to see some results from the concern of the Minister of Northern Affairs about a problem that is so important and so sensitive to the people of northern Ontario. It is not a question of cabinet solidarity. If the ministers would even try to be critical of the Minister of Northern Affairs because he happens to disagree with one of these line ministries down here, if you want a revolt just try to pick on a Minister of Northern Affairs for doing something to carry out his mandate.

We go back to the firing of civil servants because all they are doing is their job. I liken it to the Minister of Northern Affairs doing his job on behalf of the people of northern Ontario. It is not a question of cabinet solidarity and sitting on your hands and doing nothing, it is a question of carrying out the mandate of this ministry on behalf of everybody living north of the French River.

4:30 p.m.

Whether you are looking at an industrial strategy for Ontario, particularly northern Ontario where the situation is so different; whether you are talking about dental services; whether you are talking about health services in general; whether you are talking about education or hydro rates; we who have the responsibility and the privilege of representing northern ridings know what those differences are. We spend almost every waking minute of every hour of every day trying to convince our colleagues down here that they must find northern solutions to northern problems.

You cannot say that because something works in Metropolitan Toronto, Windsor, London, Ottawa or Essex that you can apply that kind of solution to the north with any reasonable expectation that it might work. We who live in the north know it will not work. That is why this minister, more than any other, has to jump over the traces. He has to be much more vocal. He has to be much more persuasive around the cabinet table.

This is the second year in a row that I have had the responsibility of being the critic for this party in dealing with northern affairs. One of the things that has bugged me for quite some time is the fact that the parliamentary assistant, for whatever reason, has never seen fit to come and at least listen to what is being said. We spend something in the neighbourhood of $6,500 a year to have the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) be your joe-boy. I monitor things pretty closely and, frankly, I do not know what he does.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: He looks after the Port Arthur riding.

Mr. Stokes: If he is hired for political reasons, I am glad to hear you admit that. If he is hired for political reasons, he does not have to look after the Lake Nipigon riding. If I took him off a main road for five minutes he would get lost and would not know where the hell he was.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) said, "He is looking after the Port Arthur riding." The Port Arthur riding is adequately looked after by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds). Mr. Lakkanen knows all about that.

I want to know why the parliamentary assistant to this minister and the Ministry of Northern Affairs is not here listening to what I have to say about northern affairs. It is bad enough that we have only two cabinet colleagues here. We did have three until the Minister of Education left. That is bad enough. I am talking to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, anyway.

We have a right to see the parliamentary assistant, who has been restricted to six per cent this year for reasons that are well known to all of us and which were explained so eloquently by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). I want to know what that guy is doing for the $6,500 he gets in addition to what an ordinary member gets around here. I have a right to know. The taxpayers of this province have a right to know, and my constituents have a right to know.

One of the things he did get involved in was the designation of the Terry Fox highway. Everybody thought it was worthwhile to designate 100 kilometres of Highway 11-17 to that great, young courageous Canadian, but they could not even do that right. I do not blame this minister and I do not blame the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). I blame the parliamentary assistant. The day before they were going to put up two signs, one of them about 100 yards from the boundary of the riding of Fort William; to which point Terry Fox never got, he stopped about 10 miles west of Pass Lake in the riding of my colleague the member for Port Arthur. But where are the signs? They are about one mile outside Nipigon facing west, the Terry Fox Courage Highway, and about 100 yards outside the boundary between Fort William and Port Arthur ridings. That is the area that was designated. Don't ask me why, but I could read you letters -- .

I am told that your colleague the Treasurer is going to be speaking within the next week or 10 days at the Tory riding association meeting for Lake Nipigon. Do you know who is going to be picketing that meeting?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There were more people at the Tory nomination last time than there were at your nomination.

Mr. Stokes: You paid them to be there. Do you want me to talk about that?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There were 60 people at the Tory nomination and only 30 at your meeting.

Mr. Stokes: He paid them to be there. I will get into that right now if you want. That is not a northern affair; that is a northern travesty.

All I am saying is that your parliamentary assistant should be here. He should at least take that much interest in a ministry and in an area of government policy that he has some responsibility for and is getting paid for.

There are several other problems I want to discuss, Mr. Chairman, but I have gone on much longer than I wanted to. I will deal in detail with some of the things I have neglected to raise up to this point as we go along with the votes. With that I will take my seat.

Mr. Chairman: Before we get into votes we traditionally allow the minister an opportunity to respond to opening remarks. If that is in order, Mr. Minister, would you have any comments?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will open my response to both the honourable members with a note of gratitude for their recognition of what the Ministry of Northern Affairs is attempting to do in northern Ontario, at least in trying to identify and respond to the unique needs associated with those north of the French River.

I want to welcome the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) as my official critic from the Liberal Party. I suppose the only connection he has with the north is his riding identification, London North. I sense from his presentation in the examination of these estimates that he has done a lot of research into and reading of speeches given by former Liberal critics. Much of the same has surfaced in previous years.

I am particularly pleased that his new leader has taken a new and opposite approach to the Ministry of Northern Affairs. You will recall that the famous -- or infamous -- Dr. Smith managed to get up to northern Ontario on a couple of occasions, but he did not think the ministry was worthwhile. It was an absolute waste of time and it was not doing the job for a variety of reasons.

4:40 p.m.

The policies and programs of this government, which in many instances are reflected through the Ministry of Northern Affairs, have been responsible for the number of members we have on this side of the House.

As I would remind the honourable member again, his new leader has taken a different approach than the previous one, Dr. Smith. I welcome that approach because I think it is a sound one. He said in Thunder Bay -- and I am sure the record will bear me out as being correct -- he would build on the strength and the base of the present Ministry of Northern Affairs, expand its role and give it more far-reaching powers than it has under our mandate today. To me that is an acceptance of the policies and programs we have been working on for the last five years. So I think there has been some early recognition in the official opposition of what is happening and what we are doing in response to the many requirements of northern Ontario.

Some of the adjectives the member was using in referring to northern Ontario would not be accepted there. Northerners do not appreciate words like "stagnant" or phrases like "living in fear" or "the raping of their resources." We do not rape our resources, we harvest them. Those words irritate northerners. The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) is agreeing with me. Northerners are very proud of what they have been able to achieve over the last generation or two. The quality of life we have up there is second to none on the North American continent.

The honourable member made some reference to a number of studies and problems we have. We are not saying we will resolve all those problems overnight but I can assure him we are working very diligently on them.

One of our problems is the single-resource- industry community. That is an area we have concentrated on. If the member would take time to read The Atikokan Story, he would see precisely what I mean when I say we take a pragmatic approach to these problems. We deal with the issues as they are today and deal with them very effectively. We did that in Atikokan. The member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) has endorsed wholeheartedly our thrust to that single-industry community.

If members have time I would encourage them to visit Atikokan this summer and see what has been done -- not only by this government and this ministry but what has been done through the determination of the people in that community to carry on. They pulled together in the gloom that lingered over that community when those two major mines closed down and removed their main source of employment. I have said many times there will always be an Atikokan because of the determination of the local people. That spirit is there in full force and has the support of this ministry and this government. That is the kind of approach we have been taking.

Another area we have been working very closely with is the Pickle Lake area. It is another single-industry community, dependent solely on its nonrenewable resources at this time. I am one of those who believe that in the future places like Pickle Lake, Red Lake and Ear Falls will not be dependent only on nonrenewable resources but will have a share in the renewable resources that are in such abundance on their doorstep.

We have a problem before us in the Pickle Lake area and again we are dealing very closely with the community and the industry there. Discussions have been going on for the last month or so with the company and with the people. We are working very closely with them to help them out of that situation.

However, there are no easy solutions for single-industry communities, particularly those with nonrenewable resources. We know that. I have not heard any magic ideas from the other side of the House as to how we should deal with these problems. Our approach, on an individual basis, is one that has been shown some response and had some definite acceptance right across northern Ontario.

I want to reassure the member for London North that the Ministry of Natural Resources, as the line ministry, has the forest regeneration program in hand, the very much talked about regeneration program right across northern Ontario, with implementation of the forest management agreements, of which we have seen a number signed to date. Others are on the planning boards now in line with the thrust that the ministry is making, along with giving financial support. A substantial amount of the financial resources for this come from my ministry to the MNR, and also from the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development which is ploughing literally millions of dollars into the regeneration and reforestation program of northern Ontario.

The honourable member mentioned some initiative, some thrust we should be moving into, particularly in relation to the farming community. He correctly identified the marketing study we undertook some considerable time ago. That report is before us now. We are reviewing the recommendations of that marketing study, which was conducted by northerners themselves. The makeup of the committee was all northerners, along with a very bright and able young fellow from our Sault Ste. Marie office, by the name of David Head. They have pulled together some exciting recommendations that we will be bringing forward. The import substitution studies were part and parcel of that marketing study, which identified, in specific areas, at least in the five major urban areas, products that could be grown in northern Ontario to support local consumption. We will be coming forward with a pamphlet or booklet that will encourage a thrust in this direction.

In the field of projects, we have embarked on a very ambitious one as a pilot project, the greenhouse at Ramore. It sounded quite simple at the start. In co-operation with the northern college, we utilized the waste heat from the TransCanada gas piping station, put that heat into a greenhouse about half an acre in size, and proved it could operate and it is feasible. That idea has been taken up by the private sector now and expanded considerably. It is now producing treelings for the Ministry of Natural Resources in abundance.

Also, under the NORDA program, the northern Ontario rural development agreement that was signed about a year ago, a federal-provincial agreement directed to the rural areas of northern Ontario to help the entrepreneurs of northern Ontario, we have to date had something in excess of 500 applications from those in the farming community directly related to their particular needs. There is a definite thrust with respect to farming in this particular ministry.

The member for London North and the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) made considerable mention of the wild rice future in this province. I am not sure if they supported an extension of the five-year moratorium or not. I have some concerns about it. Five years has given the focus, not only to the population at large but to the native people in our province, that there is terrific potential in that particular crop.

As the member for Lake Nipigon has correctly pointed out, the resources are administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources in the interest of all the people of this province, and they are doing that but not forgetting the traditional harvesting areas. The Ministry of Natural Resources had this policy when I was there, and I am sure the new minister has repeated it on several occasions, that is those traditional native harvesting areas will always be protected solely for the native people of northern Ontario. That is in place and it always will be in place, but I think there are certain hazards in extending the moratorium.

4:50 p.m.

I will refer to the report which the member for London North mentioned, the report on wild rice prepared by Peter Lee at Lakehead University. It is a very extensive survey that he is doing on behalf of this government and this ministry. The report -- of which I have a copy here and copies can be made available to the members if they are interested in them -- is the first progress report of year one, and I think it is a five-year report.

He points out in his first report that of the natural stand for world production of wild rice, Ontario has about 19.2 per cent of the total, yet our average world production is only 7.1 per cent. In other words, we have about 19 per cent of the total crop in the world, yet we are only harvesting and marketing seven per cent. I would think the extension of that moratorium would move our position further away from what I think we should be, a major producer.

The state of Minnesota today produces 64 per cent of the wild rice used in the world and we have far better climatic conditions and a far better area. The lakes and bogs of northern Ontario are more suitable, in my opinion, to the development of wild rice than the flat lands of Minnesota. Much of their rice is paddy rice, it is not the wild type that we grow in northern Ontario. I think we are losing out by not being more aggressive in not only in the harvesting but the development of the processing and the marketing of this particular product.

We have always taken the attitude, as I said earlier, that the traditional harvesting areas would be protected for our native people. We have always felt they should play a greater role, have a greater say in the processing and the marketing, not just the harvesting. For too long we have relied on those people just to do the harvesting. I think they can take those other steps. Certainly they will be given encouragement by this ministry and from this government to take those very important steps.

But to stop the rest of the world with another moratorium on wild rice, I think would be a detriment not only to our native people but to our position as developers and processors of a very excellent gourmet product that has attraction not only in this country but indeed in other parts of the world. We have here an exclusive product and we are not, in my opinion, reaping the benefits that we should for our native people and for the other sections of our society.

A more open policy, with more thrust in getting more people involved, would be of benefit to all those who have the capability of doing it. The capability is in northern Ontario but they must be given the encouragement, and it is not through a continuation of a moratorium that encouragement will move ahead.

Mr. Stokes: Well what are you going to do to assist the native people in realizing their full potential?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As I said a moment ago, there is a role they can play. I am disappointed that they have not been more aggressive in getting off the mark. Five years is a long time.

I am sure the member realizes there are producers in northwestern Ontario now who are looking as far west as California to develop a wild rice crop. It is a shame that we have the harvesting capability and the processing capability right in northern Ontario, and companies that are Canadian-owned are operating in Minnesota today. Saskatchewan is moving ahead of us; so is Manitoba. We are standing still. I think it is absolutely ridiculous.

They can be supported; their traditional harvesting areas are protected and will be protected. There is not a Minister of Natural Resources who has not repeated that statement time and time again, and they accept that. There is no argument about that, but there are all kinds of other areas that can be developed and promoted.

Mr. Stokes: If we can give $130 million to the pulp and paper industry, why can we not subsidize native people to realize that potential?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think we can and that they will. But they have to come forward; they have to be more aggressive in their demand to get involved, not, as I said, just with the harvesting but also with the processing and the marketing, which are very important.

Mr. Stokes: Sure; that's where the money is.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That's where the money is, that's right; no question about it.

The honourable member made reference to the various studies that were under way in our ministry. One dealt with the task force on the high cost of living in northern Ontario. That is nearing completion, I am told, and it should be in our hands later this summer. We will look at the recommendations very carefully and we will be making comments on those recommendations at that time.

He questions the Sudbury-Elliot Lake transportation study, which was undertaken some time ago. I would point out that no consultants were engaged in that particular study; it was undertaken by the staff of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. They looked at the whole possibility of a rapid transit system between Sudbury and Elliot Lake. They very carefully reviewed various modes of transportation and concluded that the various proposals they were looking at were not economically viable, so the report on that was never implemented because the initial studies were not very encouraging.

The member also mentioned the Peter Lee wild rice study. I have copies of that report here, Mr. Chairman, and if the members are interested I would be pleased to send copies of the first year progress report to them. I will make sure we do that before the estimates have concluded so they can get some indication of what we are doing on those studies.

There was some mention of the roads into our isolated communities. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we are working very closely with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to see if there is some way that the Ministry of Natural Resources in their overview of the forest management programs can get the companies to indicate to the ministry their specific and required forest access road alignments. We think the time has come, because of the federal Liberal action, which saw regular communication and transportation cut off from about 20 isolated communities along the Canadian National Railways main line, the northern line. In some instances those forest access roads could be realigned to serve not only the requirements of the forest industry but also those of the small pockets of population that are located along the CNR northern main line.

Our efforts with regard to peat are still moving ahead. We are having regular discussions. We are working very closely with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Energy, not only with regard to peat but also in attempting to identify larger bodies of lignite in the lower James Bay area. Those studies are going on at the present time.

I might say that I had the opportunity to go to Italy in January at the invitation of the regional government of Friuli to examine their efforts --

Mr. Stokes: Did Andy go with you?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, he did, and he was an excellent interpreter. He showed us around, and I think we learned a lot from that study, particularly in our discussions with people from the Fiat company, who had been over here, as the member for Lake Nipigon will be aware. They had gone to Armstrong to look at the potential of a cogeneration system that could be developed in the Armstrong area. As the member is aware, those two diesel generating units will have to be replaced within two years. In our original assessment we felt very strongly that Armstrong lent itself very well to a pilot program.

Mr. Stokes: Who proposed it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It must have surfaced somewhere. The member's suggestion was a good one, and we accepted it because it is a natural. It has an airport, a road link, a railway link and it is an isolated community.

Mr. Stokes: And high costs.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, and high costs. It lends itself ideally to such a pilot project. We did send engineers to Armstrong; they also visited Hearst, and they went down to Minnesota to look at the gasification plant there. We are waiting for their report, which should be back in the next month or so, to give us some idea as to the possibilities of developing something at Armstrong.

5 p.m.

In our preliminary discussions we think it could support about 15 units in toto using the peat or even the wood gasification process in that area. It is unique. It is 95 per cent efficient using any of these fuels, not only providing electrical power but also providing a tremendous amount of heat for buildings and that type of thing.

Mr. Stokes: Greenhouses.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Greenhouses; yes, that is still very much alive.

The member for London North made some mention of the health care system and his recent visit to northern Ontario along with the task force to look at what is being done. I said in my opening remarks I was a little disappointed that the positive side of the moves we have made in the past few years were not recognized.

Those of us who live in northern Ontario are very much aware of the changes that have come about in the past year, be they in the development of medical clinics, mobile dental units and the changes to the Ontario health insurance plan as they relate to travel. If one is in a hospital one now can be transferred to another hospital by an excellent air ambulance system.

I was very disappointed to read in the Thunder Bay paper about a doctor in that area who has certain political leanings and who was very critical of the air ambulance system before the Liberal task force. He thought it was a waste of money and was not needed and not warranted. Those of us living in northern Ontario do not think --

Mr. J. A. Reed: He documented the husbands who beat their wives into the hospitals, as a matter of fact.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am sure he is eating his words today, because those statements did not go down well in northern Ontario. We do not think we should have a second-class service; we should have a first-class service. In my discussions with the Minister of Health we started out to devise and implement a first-class system, and we have it. I take pride in that. I do not think any northerner in this House would want anything less.

I say to the doctor in Thunder Bay he would be wise to re-examine his remarks and maybe speak what true northerners really feel about what we know to be an excellent service. The wife of the member for Lake Nipigon had occasion to use the air ambulance system just last Friday.

Mr. Stokes: Last Friday.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He would recommend it to all of us as second to none. We are getting that kind of acceptance of the air ambulance system right across the north. There is no question but that we have a lot of improvements to make. We are not saying that we have all the answers or that we have satisfied all the requirements of the health care program and system in northern Ontario.

When we attempt to attract specialists into the small communities in the remote areas we cannot forget that we have about 90 per cent of the land mass and only 10 per cent of the population, but nevertheless our whole thrust has been eventually to make northern Ontario self-sufficient and self-supporting in its health care program. That is why we are directing patients to major medical referral centres.

We have seen the development of a cancer clinic at Thunder Bay; it is second to none in the province and is closely connected with Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto. Many people from northwest Ontario who used to go to Manitoba are now going to Thunder Bay, realizing what a wonderful facility we have there. That is just a start.

The cardiovascular unit in Sudbury is moving ahead and gaining in strength. That will come about over time. If we constantly send our patients to Winnipeg or to the Toronto area, we will never have a good, strong medical system.

Mr. Stokes: Or to Rochester.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Rochester is becoming very expensive. OHIP will pay only the rate in Ontario, and I think the member knows the problem that causes us as northern members. I have several cases on my platter that I am dealing with at present.

I thank the member for London North for his opening remarks and for his contribution. I sense a sincere desire on his part to be constructive and helpful, and for that I express my appreciation to him.

The member for Lake Nipigon is always, in his own way, very positive and straightforward; he is critical sometimes but nevertheless always helpful. Certainly I do appreciate his remarks relating to our moving towards being more of an advocate than we have been in the past. I think he has recognized that. There are certain problems related to that, as I am sure he is aware. One has to do it with delicacy, class and finesse, but with persuasion.

Mr. Stokes: Even if you do have to knock a few heads together.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is not that. I have to say very sincerely that the Ministry of Northern Affairs would not have been able to respond to so many problems in the north had it not been for the sincerity and faith my colleagues show towards this ministry.

As an example, I am involved in three policy fields and I am on Management Board of Cabinet. It is obvious I cannot be at three of those committees at once, but I trust my colleagues in cabinet. Without exception, they always protect the northern interest. Sometimes they even amaze me. One will come to me and say: "You were not at the meeting. I realize you could not be there. Something came up that would have an effect on northern Ontario, and this is what I said." It is that kind of co-operation I am getting from my cabinet colleagues. I certainly want to have it on record that I appreciate their constant concern for the special problems of northern Ontario.

The member for Lake Nipigon made some reference to the Hydro requirements of Wunnummin Lake. I am sure he is aware that Hydro has entered into an agreement with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that is in place. There is a long-range program, which is much more protracted than I would like to see over a period of time; nevertheless it is there. We have contacted them and asked them to accelerate that program because we think it is really needed. The same old reply comes back, "It is geared to the funding that will flow to our department and that is in place." But we will continue to press them to accelerate that program, one that Hydro services for them and then charges back to the department. It is something we are working very closely with them on.

Also, in co-operation with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, we are pressing the federal government with regard to improved navigational aids in remote areas of northern Ontario. We have an excellent airstrip program. More than 20 airstrips now are completed, but we do lack aids. We saw the problem at Pikangikum, where the lights failed. An airplane crashed because there was no lighting system on that strip and the navigational aids were nonexistent.

It is fair to say the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) had worked out a program with the former Minister of Transport in Ottawa, Don Mazankowski. The thrust we took at that time was that the province would develop an airstrip program if the federal government, in turn, would look after the navigational aids, because they spread across provincial boundaries and are strictly a federal responsibility. That was agreed to. It took us some time to get the new administration on track with regard to that proposal, but I am told it is back on track now and that it is moving ahead and we will see some real improvements to navigational aids in northern Ontario.

5:10 p.m.

I have said a considerable amount concerning the wild rice issue in northern Ontario. I am pleased that the member for Lake Nipigon has taken such an interest in that field. As he knows, we have engaged Peter Lee who is, in my opinion, the expert on the North American continent with regard to wild rice. He is a young, bright fellow who hails from the University of Manitoba and who now is working at Lakehead University. I have not run into anybody who is better.

There was a gentleman by the name of Bob Edmund in Minneapolis who was very knowledgeable in the field of wild rice, but he has passed on. I have to say in all sincerity that Peter Lee has taken up where he left off and is doing a great job. I know we will get good results from the funds we are putting into Lakehead University, not only in strengthening and broadening our knowledge of wild rice but also in helping that university to become a research centre for the northwest. I am pleased that we were able to do that for this facility.

The thrust of our whole efforts in the wild rice industry, as the member for Lake Nipigon pointed out, is to maximize the benefits not only for our native people but also for all the people of the province, particularly those living in northern Ontario. The potential is there and, if we take a common sense approach, it will be realized.

The member asked a question about the announcement I made earlier today with respect to the northern employment incentive program. I am very pleased that I was able to make this announcement, because I think it is the first time we have directed a specific program to the unorganized areas of northern Ontario.

For all the years that I have been around, this has been an area that always has been left out of these programs, because there was really no way one could fund those pockets of population and satisfy their needs. There was no structure there and no ministry that was sensitive to their particular needs. Now we have such a ministry and a program that will answer those needs as they relate to unemployment.

There will be $500,000 for the local services boards and community organizations, which is a sizeable amount of money. We have limited the total amount to $7,500 for each community, from which 100 per cent of the labour costs will be taken. In addition, the unorganized communities assistance fund will pay 25 per cent towards material costs. For example, if a local services board or community organization wishes to develop a firehall, we will pay 25 per cent of the material costs, and 100 per cent of the labour costs will be borne by the incentive program.

We believe much of this money will go towards clean up and beautification work in the communities. Also, we hope that emphasis will be placed on firefighting improvements and repairs to recreational facilities.

We chose to go the route of the Northern Affairs officers for this program because we have 29 of them located strategically across northern Ontario. We feel we can get the message out to those communities much faster through those officers than in any other way. They will take the application. They will be fully briefed on the criteria we have set out, which are not stringent. We are not being boxed in with rules and regulations. Unlike the organized communities, there is no deadline for applications. It takes time for those people to get their act together; we know that, and so we have left it open, although the program does end on December 31 of this year. We are going to monitor this program very carefully because I think it will be a forerunner of other programs to follow in the years to come.

I was pleased that the member for Lake Nipigon recognized our slight shift towards the social policy field. For the last year or two we have been very sensitive to those needs in northern Ontario, particularly as they relate to the field of health. The member has seen our emphasis in assisting municipalities in the north to develop medical centres. We have a number of those located across northern Ontario now. We have co-operated financially with the Ministry of Health in providing mobile dental coaches, which are doing an excellent job in northern Ontario. We have gone so far as funding the Kenora-Rainy River District Health Council to fund a pilot program for dental improvement in the remote schools of that region. That is going over exceptionally well. There was a report prepared by Dr. Les Armstrong. It is available to members if they are interested. I would be glad to get them copies. It is something that answers a specific need.

We have also become involved in providing bursaries to doctors, dentists and certain specialists in our efforts to get them to move to northern Ontario. That has worked exceptionally well, but I have to confide to members that my own nephew, who graduated from the University of Manitoba with a doctor's degree, has not seen fit to move back to northwestern Ontario. I am disappointed that it has not registered with him. He is staying in Manitoba and intends to specialize in gynaecology. He tells me that a specialist has to stay in a large major centre because that is where the big bucks are. That is what he tells me. Nevertheless, it has worked in many other areas and the response is there.

Mr. Stokes: I hope he paid back the bursary.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, he did not take one. I sent him all the information, I twisted his arm, I did everything, but he would not bite. Some day he may come around, because the future is really in northern Ontario.

Members have seen our involvement in the air ambulance program where we funded 50 per cent of the cost. That program has finished its first full year. Now we will go into a six-month evaluation period to examine last year's operation to see whether we are using the right airplanes and whether we are operating from the right communities. That is something we will look at very carefully. It may well be that we should be operating out of different communities or with different types of airplanes. As members know, we have four different types of airplanes, two different types of helicopters, a jet and a King Air. That information will be flowing through now and we will be making those long-term decisions in the near future.

The latest thrust we have in the social policy field was announced in the throne speech where the members became aware of our desire to see improvements for the senior citizens of northern Ontario under our long-term extended care program. This originates from a private member's bill that my colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) brought to this House two years ago. He did get full support from all members of the House for an excellent idea, one that we are implementing now.

There are no new funds for this program, but here we are shifting from the infrastructure areas. Over the past five or six years we have ploughed about $35 million into sewer and water projects, topping up what the Ministry of the Environment has been doing. Because of the high costs in northern Ontario, many of the municipalities could not afford the excessive costs of sewer and water projects. We assisted financially on top of what MOE was giving.

Now we think we should shift our emphasis and go into the social field, and the extended care program will take some of those dollars. We have identified approximately 25 communities that we think could qualify for the 20 extended care units that would be attached to a hospital, using the common laundry, kitchen, administration and nursing staff of the existing facility. That program is moving ahead now.

The various hospital boards will make the applications. They will flow through the district health council, which prioritizes the requirements of that region. In turn, the applications will go to the Ministry of Health for examination and approval. Then we in the Ministry of Northern Affairs will put up five sixths of the capital funding, and one sixth will be raised by the local hospital board or the community where the facility will be located.

5:20 p.m.

It will provide extended care for our senior citizens in the smaller communities. In no way do we want to detract from or diminish the importance of the homes for the aged and other such institutions located across the north in many of our ridings, because they offer excellent service. However, there is a need for that extended care in the smaller communities, and we are answering that need with this new program.

In answer to the comments made by the member for Lake Nipigon with respect to dental therapy, he is quite right in pointing out that there are no legal provisions in Ontario for the practise of this type of profession. The dentists have made it very clear that they can and will provide service for the need to which he refers. In fact, just the other night I had the pleasure of being a guest at the Ontario Dental Association members' annual dinner. I understand they will offer the same opportunity to each of the other parties within the next few weeks.

Mr. Stokes: Tomorrow night, as a matter of fact.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Is it tomorrow night?

The retiring president, Brad Holmes, who hails from Kenora, informs me they have about 150 dentists who have agreed to come into northern Ontario on a rotational basis and serve the small communities to which the member has made reference.

Mr. Stokes: Things must be tough all over.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are moving around, because I think they --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: They are doing it voluntarily.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, they are doing it voluntarily. Brad Holmes, who is very knowledgeable about that area of northern Ontario, has taken the first group around to try to get them settled in and to show them the distances involved and the needs of those areas. I am confident the ODA has things in hand.

Mr. Van Horne: The minister indicated this was a volunteer commitment that they made. There is no remuneration for their services; is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There was a payment from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, but it is a very small payment.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are giving freely of their time to go up to northern Ontario and be part of this rotating package.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is organized and administered by ODA.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes. I must say the cooperation my ministry has had from the Ontario Dental Association has been most encouraging. John Gillies, the executive director, has gone out of his way to try to answer those specific needs and problems in northern Ontario through his good offices. I feel very confident that if we have a problem with dentistry in northern Ontario we can get advice and support from that organization. In my opinion, it is extremely sensitive to those needs up in the north.

The member also mentioned the high-cost-of- living study, which is in final draft preparation. I mentioned a moment ago that we will be reviewing the recommendations later this summer, but I have to caution the members that' there are no simple solutions to those problems north of the 50th parallel.

I might say we are sharing and reviewing our findings with other provinces, and it was interesting to note that Alberta was very anxious to learn what we are trying to do with regard to the high cost of living. This is a matter that will be discussed at the northern affairs ministers' conference, to be held in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, in mid-September. It is one of the items on the agenda for discussion.

The member mentioned subsidization of urban transportation in southern Ontario, and I agree. I want to remind him, however, we subsidize the airports that are developed in those remote communities. We also subsidize the winter roads program. Members may be interested to know that we have written to those Indian communities and asked them to submit to us a band council resolution by August 1 of this year, indicating their desire for a winter road program for at least three years in advance. I do not know if the member followed the results of this year's winter road program, but it did not get off the ground until January.

Mr. Stokes: Windigo transportation.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Windigo, yes. We have had our problems because of the lateness in getting the band council resolutions and requests from the Indian bands. In the northern Ontario resources transportation committee meetings we had some representations from the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and our own Ministry of Northern Affairs, and it was unanimous that we should ask for a three-year band council resolution whereby we could encourage better operators, who would in turn purchase better equipment, which would add some length and life to a very difficult and expensive program in the north.

Mr. Stokes: It's hard on the bulldozers.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes.

We have also written the various bands to bring to their attention the federal work incentive program as it relates to Indian bands, because the federal government shortly will be announcing a very extensive program to create jobs on or in association with the reserves. We felt they might want to consider using those funds to clear road rights of way on land to keep our winter roads programs off the lakes and put them back on the land. We have sent that out as a suggestion, and I hope the response is positive.

In his windup, the member mentioned the efforts of Northern Affairs officers and their service to the people of northern Ontario. I do not want to miss the opportunity to compliment our staff, not only Northern Affairs officers but all those 70 per cent of our ministry staff who are in northern Ontario looking after the needs of the north. They are all very sensitive; I think it is fair to say that they know the problems and how to deal with them.

The member correctly pointed out that many of those problems are federal. We have determined that 30 to 35 per cent of the work of a Northern Affairs officer deals directly with a federal program or programs. We have taken the advice of our Northern Affairs officers and we meet regularly to get their feedback on how they should or could improve their programs. This is passed on to the federal authorities. I have not seen any massive changes, but we do not miss an opportunity to pass that information on to them because it certainly makes our work a lot easier.

In fact, I had given some thought at one time to assessing the cost to provincial taxpayers of delivering federal programs. Maybe we should charge the federal government for the delivery of these programs and in turn use those funds to put more Northern Affairs officers in northern Ontario. We have not gotten around to that yet, but I think it is a real possibility.

We do not want to cut off our servicing of the federal requirements, and we never will, because it is just too frustrating to be in a small community in northern Ontario and have no place to go. Granted, when the members are there they can look after those problems, but they are down here doing their legislative duty and cannot be at home. Sure, our constituency officers are handling a lot of those problems; but our Northern Affairs officers do likewise and through their excellent communications and their telex system they are able to respond very quickly.

I appreciated the member's recognition of our efforts in the comments we made to the Ontario Energy Board on the proposal submitted by Ontario Hydro to change the hydro rate structure to a seasonal basis. We have signalled our concern to the Ontario Energy Board, and we hope they will recognize that there may be some detrimental effect on those living north of the 50th parallel. We have asked them to take this into consideration in their assessment of that presentation by Ontario Hydro.

5:30 p.m.

As the member for Lake Nipigon has pointed out, this is a role we should be taking and we are glad to take that role. It is an advocacy role, one that has results. It is fair to say we do get a response sometimes -- not all the time, but we never fail to go back the second or third time if that is necessary. I share your feelings that in the future we will be much more aggressive than we have been in the past in these areas.

You questioned the efforts of my parliamentary assistant. I am most pleased to have the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) as my parliamentary assistant and nobody in this House can question his efforts on behalf of his riding or the people of northern Ontario. He is extremely knowledgeable.

Mr. Stokes: I am glad he condescended to join us.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I did not even know he was here.

Mr. Hennessy: The next time you have trouble in Schreiber I'll help you.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is nobody more sensitive and more knowledgeable of the problems of northern Ontario, or more anxious to help in solving those problems. He has taken a burden off my shoulders on many occasions when I have not been able to attend certain meetings and events or deliver certain messages. He has done that very willingly.

It is fair to say we have a working relationship like I had with the member for Algoma--Manitoulin. The sensitivity among northern members is a little different. It is unique to the north. It is a pleasure to have him work with us and I assure you he more than earns his $6,500. I should be giving him twice as much as he gets, if I could, because he does it with class. He is a credit not only to this government but to this ministry. I am pleased to have him with us.

I have touched on most of the points the members have brought forward in their opening statements. As we go through the vote by vote I hope we can open up. In the past I have not kept the discussion or the debate to specific votes. I do not know if that is the way you want it to go. I like a free-wheeling debate because it makes it easier that way.

I will ask my new deputy minister and whoever he wants to bring with him, perhaps -- Mr. Tiemann, who is head of the financial division -- to come forward. We will be answering your questions. We welcome them and any constructive advice or criticism you can bring forward is welcome too.

On vote 701, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back to page 10 of our briefing book if I can. The goals of the ministry are spelled out on that page. This is an appropriate place to go back to our opening statements to clear up any uncertainties that came out of them and, in a sense, provide a rebuttal to the rebuttal and tie that in with this first vote, even though the minister indicated he did not mind if we wandered a little.

The first goal suggested under the ministry administration program is, "To provide executive direction, administrative resources and support services to enable the ministry to fulfil its mandate in northern Ontario."

Seeing that, I can appreciate the minister's rather strong feelings about the study he claims I did not know about or that I had not read, that is The Atikokan Story. I could have interrupted him on Friday to wave the book in front of him and to point out the sections I had underlined, but I do not know that would have done anything but provoke the minister to go on for another 10 or 15 minutes.

I can appreciate his strong feelings for this document because there are 15 recommendations related specifically to the provincial government. I would suggest that some of these have not yet been acted upon. I would like it if the minister or his staff could take a few moments, identify and run through those 15 and tell us where they have actually done work on those 15 recommendations. In doing so, that could tie in with the second point in the goals statement of the briefing booklet, that the minister should be involved in prioritizing. I would like to see, in acting on all or some of those 15 recommendations, what the priorities have been. Perhaps there could be some statement about the priority process and the mandate of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

The third point is to carry out effective advocacy on behalf of the people of the north. If we are dealing with the specifics of the budget I would have to ask how much of an advocate he has been in allowing the licence fee to take the rather marked jump it is going to take when we see these new fees come into effect.

Further, I would ask what role of advocacy he is playing in terms of the theme that all three of us hit on both Friday and today, that is the theme of the northern referral centres. I do not think anyone in this House, or anyone in northern Ontario, would quarrel with the need for the minister to act as an advocate here and to intercede with the Ministry of Health, and do something more than just talk about providing full service for northern Ontario.

I might add, as an aside, the minister was rather critical of some of the language I used on Friday. He said the people in northern Ontario do not like to be told they live in fear. I talk to many people in the north. If they are in a remote area with a young child who requires medical attention and they are not sure they can get, not just to the local doctor but from the local doctor to a centre such as Sudbury or Sault Ste. Marie -- many hundreds of miles away in some cases -- there is an element of fear. One has to empathize with them.

They do not say to me, "You have everything at your fingertips in southern Ontario." They are not concerned about that. They have chosen the north, they have been part of it, and they want to have something close to them. Certainly there was no intent on my part to belittle a fear. Fear is a pretty natural part of all of our lives. If there is a person in this chamber who has not been frightened at some time I would like to know who that person is. I do not think there is anything wrong with fear, but I do think there is something wrong with a system that does not do anything to allay fears.

If he has a mandate to intercede and to be an advocate, I would encourage the minister to tell us a little bit more about the role he is playing with the Ministry of Health, beyond the air ambulance service. For example, in talking with some of the doctors in our travels in Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie and Timmins, a noticeable number of those people had grown up in the north, taken their training here in southern Ontario at Queen's University, the University of Toronto or the University of Western Ontario, and then had gone back north.

Some of them commented there was precious little encouragement at the grade 12 and 13 stage of their lives to proceed into a career like that and to go back north. Their decision to go into medicine, in most cases I think, was made fairly early, but the decision to go back north was not one that they consciously made or chose to ignore one way or the other. Most of them said they did not think about where they were going to try to practise at the time of entry to university. When questioned about the role of high schools in encouraging people from the north to pursue medicine and then go back north they had no answers. They just did not know. I submit to the minister that may be an area where he can use his influence with the Ministry of Education.

In monitoring, the next point in his goals, the minister is supposed to be developing appropriate policies and recommendations for the ministry and for government consideration, and also to monitor them. I would like to know what monitoring process you follow. Is this a happenstance monitoring? Do you monitor each program with a specific set of goals in mind? Is this management by objectives? Just what are you doing in terms of monitoring programs other than counting on the handwritten or verbal reports of the handful of officers when you meet with them once a year or with a handful of your senior ministry people? How do you monitor your programs?

5:40 p.m.

I will move along to one other point found on page 10 of our briefing book. The book indicates that one of your roles is to ensure ministry compliance with statutes and regulations. I am wondering about recommendation 15 in The Atikokan Story. That item makes reference to camping on crown lands. Perhaps you could tie those two things in and tell me a little bit about the particular goal you have.

Having asked those questions on this vote I would like to ask a further question on the minister's salary. We were all told on the evening of the budget it would be held, as all members' salaries would be, to a six per cent increase. As I look at the salary stated in the estimates of 1981-82 and then for the 1982-83 estimates I see a jump from $21,000 to $23,300, which is an increase of $2,300 or 10.95 per cent. That is hardly six per cent. The parliamentary assistant's salary rises from $6,500 to $7,200, an increase of $700 or 10.77 per cent. I am sure these will be revised downward if, as we understood the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) to say, all our incomes will be held to that six per cent level. Perhaps you could give us an indication about the accuracy of those numbers.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the honourable member's request for specific responses to the 15 recommendations in The Atikokan Story, I will have to get that for him. We will have it before the estimates are complete.

As to specific actions on those 15 recommendations, we are following up on a number of them with the Atikokan people, with the industrial development committee and a number of groups in Atikokan. But I will get those specifics and pass them on to the honourable member.

Mr. Stokes: He just wanted to let you know that he had read The Atikokan Story because on Friday you accused him of not having read it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Right. The member also made some mention of the increased automobile registration fees that will be imposed next year by the Treasurer through the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. He wanted to know what advocacy role I played in that decision. I was involved with the Minister of Transportation and Communications and the Treasurer, looking at that new thrust -- a new registration system that will see the registration plate tied to the owner and not the automobile.

Because of the new computerized system and the new system of renewal on birthdates, and because the Treasurer was looking for not large increases of funds but some increases in funding, we felt that the 48-24 split was one that was fair and reasonable. There are people in southern Ontario who are still paying 100 per cent more than those of us in northern Ontario and I can assure you that is being accepted in northern Ontario as fair and reasonable.

Mr. Stokes: I will pay their registration if they will pay my gas bills. Is that fair?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I can assure you the gas prices are not that different in the urban areas of northern Ontario as compared to some of the urban areas in southern Ontario.

Mr. Stokes: Try buying it in Schreiber.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You are being specific now. I will not bite on that one.

The member also referred to the efforts we are making in the development of northern referral centres and I appreciated that comment. I know he shares the view of my colleague from Lake Nipigon.

We are very much involved in establishing government policy and programs. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, as Minister of Northern Affairs I am involved in the three policy fields of cabinet. I am a member of the cabinet committee on native affairs, a member of the bicentennial committee and a member of Management Board of Cabinet. I am also a member of the Board of Industrial Leadership Development. That takes in a broad scope of government policy and planning programs.

Not only do I monitor those from my position as a member of cabinet, but along with my deputy and two assistant deputy minister, my staff who are located in northern Ontario also monitor all those cabinet submissions very closely. I think it is fair to say we are one ministry that really has a finger on the pulse of all the submissions that flow through to cabinet. That is a sensitivity that we have as a specific and unique ministry in this government.

I am told the salary, $23,300, is the current salary for this year as announced last year. It does not include the six per cent. That is the salary that was announced or agreed to some time ago, effective April 1, 1981. So it has been in place for a year.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman, I am confused. I understood the briefing book to indicate the $23,300 was for the fiscal year 1982-83, which should mean that it came into play as of April 1. Let us go back to basics. Whatever it is now, how much will it be increased under this budget we are dealing with?

Mr. Stokes: The Legislature will tell him that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is right. When it comes here it has all been approved by the Legislature.

Mr. Stokes: Unless the Legislature takes some action it will not be anything, not even the six per cent.

Mr. Van Horne: We are playing games with words and procedures here. What is the difference between --

Mr. Stokes: He does not set the salary. This assembly does under the Legislative Assembly Act.

Mr. Van Horne: The member for Lake Nipigon tells me something I think we all know. What I want to know is, does the six per cent limitation, which is supposed to be applied to members, also apply to the minister's salary and to the parliamentary assistant's salary?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I do not think that decision has even been made. I think there was a reference in the budget speech to members' salaries. I do not recall and am not aware of any discussion that reflected on increasing ministers' salaries.

Mr. Van Horne: That is a revelation for some people. Let me ask one other question regarding the figures we have for the administrative program.

The analysis and planning section: 1981-82 estimates indicate $952,000; 1982-83, $1.613 million, an increase of $661,000. Even if one subtracts from that $253,000 for administrative support for main office -- and I am not sure it is fair to subtract that; if it is not subtracted there is an increase of 69.43 per cent; if it is there is an increase of 42.86 per cent. What are we getting for that analysis and planning dollar that is being spent and why the big increase?

5:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Much of this is made up of the improvements to our system as that relates to a word processing function that was installed this year. The affirmative action program took up $20,000, the audit co-ordinator was $45,000 and some salary awards came to $67,800.

Mr. Van Horne: Can we get a copy of that or is it available?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Sure; we can give you a copy of this.

Mr. Van Horne: One final question on the same page: I thought I had asked all the questions, but I have another concern here. It is on the legal services, which is a new activity. How was that provided in the preceding years? Was that tacked on to another ministry? Were you using some kind of slush fund to buy outside services or is what we are getting now the cost of a lawyer or lawyers within the ministry?

I will tell you the reason I ask. On the Order Paper two years ago, I put a question to the government wondering what was spent for outside legal services in the years 1978 and 1979, I believe it was. The response came back that, in addition to the various lawyers who are working for the various ministries on a direct line base, the outside services cost in the neighbourhood of $8.5 million over two years. That is a large chunk of dough. What I would like to know is, what is this $73,000? Did you have any service in preceding years paid for by another ministry?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The $73,000 which the member made reference to is a new activity. Up to this point we have had the services of a legal person provided by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In other words, the lawyer formerly was in that ministry and doing our work for us. We in turn would fund a journal entry to the Ministry of Housing. Now that individual has been transferred to our ministry and is full time in our ministry so it is obvious we should show him now as part of our operation. That is his operation, one legal person operating solely for our ministry.

Mr. Van Horne: It is essentially one person's salary.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: One person, yes. There is transportation, which we estimate at $8,000; his service is $63,000; and supplies and equipment are $2,000, for a total of $73,000.

Ms. Bryden: While we are discussing general policy and before we get into a lot of detail, I want to go back to the wild rice policy the minister dealt with at some length. I know my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon also dealt with it.

I thought it would be useful for the minister to realize that southern Ontario members are also very concerned about what is happening in this field. We are also concerned that we get the maximum benefit from our wild rice fields for the province and people of Ontario. But we also think we must get the maximum benefit from the wild rice fields for the native peoples. I think that is the bottom line on this crop because it has been a traditional crop for the native peoples for many years.

I would like to remind the minister of the Premier's (Mr. Davis) commitment in May 1978 that his government would extend its efforts "to establish wild rice production as a viable economic base for the Indian people." I am sure the minister recalls the Premier also put in his statement of May 1978 what might be called "weasel words" which limited that commitment. He said:

"No additional licences will be issued to non-Indians during the next five years unless it can be demonstrated to the tripartite working group that market potential for Ontario wild rice is sufficient to support an increased share of production by non-Indians without jeopardizing our efforts to establish wild rice production as a viable economic base for the Indian people."

It looks to me as if the minister is now taking advantage of those weasel words put in by the Premier and deciding he does not have to extend the moratorium and he will open up fields. I want to know how he will judge whether opening additional fields to non-Indians will or will not jeopardize the efforts to establish wild rice production as a viable economic base for the Indian people. He has not given them a chance to show what they could do in the processing and marketing fields. He has not given them sufficient funds to get into these fields and, therefore, they do not know how many fields they will need or what kind of resources. Until he gives them that chance I do not think he can say their opportunity to develop a viable economic base from this resource will or will not be jeopardized.

In fact, in the last four years under the moratorium they have had various handicaps placed on them rather than assistance, such as the unstable water levels that resulted in very unstable yields. I gather they requested assistance for a mechanical harvester to collect seeding rice. They were told they could only have it for demonstrations. They also requested financial assistance for developing additional processing and to buy seed rice. They were told to go to the federal government.

Surely this is nor giving a fair trial for what was intended by putting the moratorium on. I would like to ask that there be another five-year moratorium and, in that period, the native peoples in that area be given adequate funds to develop the fields they need and to develop processing and marketing facilities. Only then can the minister say he has kept faith with that commitment by the Premier to establish wild rice production as a viable economic base for the Indian people.

I have met with various groups in southern Ontario, such as the Ten Days for World Development group and the Grand Council Treaty 3 people. I read the briefs that were submitted to the Hartt commission on wild rice, and I certainly am convinced we must give the Indians this opportunity. This government must make sure they have this opportunity before they open up those fields to non-Indians.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Robinson): I draw the minister's attention to the clock and ask if this would be a suitable time to recess unless his response is going to be very brief.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: My response will be lengthy.

The Acting Chairman: Then I would suggest it might be appropriate to move it on to the next time slotted for your estimates.

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

The House recessed at 5:59 p.m.

May 31, 1982