Hansard Transcript 1988-May-17 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Farnan: The Woods Gordon review found Cambridge Memorial Hospital to be well run, cost-effective and providing necessary services. However, the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), in refusing to fund the hospital deficit, also refuses to identify what programs or services she will cut to get a balanced budget.

For weeks the minister has been waffling on, oblivious to the facts presented to her and refusing to answer questions. I encourage the members and the press gallery to review the responses of the minister over the past week. An exercise in gobbledegook is too kind a description. The Speaker yesterday confirmed he does not have the authority to demand from the minister a straight answer to a straight question.

Bureaucratic clichés, pious expressions of concern and totally irrelevant nonsense are unacceptable to the people of Ontario, who are concerned that this minister is butchering the present health care delivery system without anything constructive to put in its place. The minister must fund this cost-effective hospital or she must cut services.

Surely the people of Cambridge have a right to an answer. Surely the people of Ontario have a right to an answer. If the minister wants to cut services, she must say what services she will cut. It is absolutely incumbent upon the minister to answer a simple question.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). It concerns the mounting dissatisfaction throughout Ontario with the minister’s lack of interest in, concern for and action on the garbage crisis in this province.

If he had taken the time to sift through the piles of garbage that have accumulated in his office, he would no doubt find a copy of a resolution passed unanimously by the mayors of Orillia, Penetanguishene, Barrie, Bradford, Midland, Alliston, Collingwood, Stayner and Wasaga Beach that condemns him for his lack of leadership, responsibility and co-ordination in resolving the extremely serious solid waste management problem now facing a majority of the municipalities in Ontario.

It seems that with each passing day we hear about more and more landfill sites that the minister has closed down. We continue to hear about his program of transporting garbage from a community that has had its landfill site closed and hauling it to another municipality that will undoubtedly have to close its landfill site sooner than expected because of the increased load of garbage dumped there.

We have yet to hear about one solitary new landfill site that the minister has found and opened to dispose of the ever-increasing mounds of garbage we are creating. We have yet to hear him announce his support for or assistance to the construction of one single, solitary, new recycling plant for paper, glass, plastic or aluminum to create employment.

NATIONAL TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK

Mr. Dietsch: I would like to take this opportunity to share with the members of the House some of the events which are taking place in my riding of St. Catharines-Brock during National Tourism Awareness Week. Yesterday I participated in the kick-off breakfast hosted by the Holiday Inn, where the week’s activities were discussed and promoted.

Some of these events included on May 16, last night, the proclamation at city hall, including appearances by St. Catharines characters, both past and present. Today is “arrest-a-tourist” day in St. Catharines, where a family visiting Lock 3 will be arrested by an officer and given complimentary accommodation, meals, passes to local attractions and a tour of the area.

On Thursday, there will be a Niagara Grape and Wine Festival gourmet wine evening. On Saturday, a multitude of events will be ongoing: for example, public information displays by tourism-related organizations at the Pen Centre; a concert featuring the Sunburst steel band; and open house at Lock 3,

where the model of the new St. Catharines museum and tourism services complex can be viewed.

At this point, I would like to congratulate the St. Catharines and District Chamber of Commerce and the many volunteers who have made this National Tourism Awareness Week possible and such a success. In closing, I invite the members of this House to come and share the steeped history of St. Catharines and area and enjoy some of the sites. I welcome anyone who wishes to come down to St. Catharines-Brock for these events.

ONTARIO HYDRO ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRE

Miss Martel: Last Thursday I questioned the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) on a study Ontario Hydro was conducting in the village of Warren, which is in the east end of my riding. The purpose of the study is to determine the feasibility and the cost-effectiveness of transferring some 12 administrative service jobs from Warren to North Bay. Both myself and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) have advised the minister that we are very much against any move Hydro would make to relocate the service out of this small community.

The village itself consists of some 560 residents, while the population of the township is approximately 1,400 people. The village relies heavily on the employment Ontario Hydro provides not only in the administrative service, but also in its line and forestry operations. It is my belief, and this is shared with town council and Hydro employees, that if even one service is relocated, other Hydro operations will soon follow.

The effect on the village, on the township and on the neighbouring communities which rely on these services will be devastating. Not only will the village suffer a serious economic setback, but it and the outlying communities will also experience a major loss in terms of quality customer service. The Minister of Energy must ensure that Ontario Hydro will not relocate any jobs out of Warren. The effects will be disastrous and the social costs much higher than any savings Hydro hopes to make. I trust the minister will act on this as quickly as possible.

MINISTRY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

Mr. Harris: Once again, I agree with the great Conservative thinker from Sudbury East; however, today I want to talk about Ontario’s incredible tax increases being the direct result of spending by the Peterson Liberals. I think Ontario taxpayers deserve an explanation, particularly when it comes to spending by ministers’ offices.

Today I would like to mention three specific examples. Can the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) explain why his main office budget has increased by $850,000, or 18 percent, in one year; and why spending on salaries for his office staff is up by $750,000? Perhaps the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) can explain why his main office budget has increased by nearly $500,000, or 62 per cent, in one year. Perhaps he can tell us why spending on salaries for his office staff has doubled. Then there is the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten). His main office spending has increased by a full 100 per cent, from $1.1 million in 1986-87 to $2.2 million this year. Perhaps he can explain why his staff salaries have increased by nearly $1 million.

Hospitals are being cut back, college students are being forced to quit because of program cuts, taxpayers will be paying as much as an estimated $1.8 billion this year and this bloated government is on a rampage hiring staff to serve its political masters. We intend to continue to hold this government accountable.

1340

GOODYEAR CANADA INC.

Mr. MacDonald: I was pleased to hear the announcement recently made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) confirming construction of the Goodyear tire plant in the Napanee area. This announcement will not only benefit the constituents of Prince Edward-Lennox but also all of eastern Ontario. I am grateful to all parties involved with these negotiations.

I would like to mention three dedicated men who worked very hard to see that this plant located in the Napanee area. They are Jim Kimmett, clerk-treasurer of Richmond township; Jack McNamee, clerk-treasurer of the town of Napanee; and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil).

In addition, I would like to pay tribute to the students of Napanee District Secondary School for their participation in ensuring that Goodyear located in the Napanee area. The announcement confirms the commitment by the government of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to make Ontario an international competitor in the tire industry.

TEMAGAMI ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. Wildman: I would like to make some comments with regard to the announcements today by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) outside the House about the backing off by the government on a hearing on the environmental assessment of the Red Squirrel Road.

It is significant that in their comments there was absolutely no mention of the Teme-Augama Anishnabai land claim and any attempt to settle it. There was no commitment to reallocate local timber limits, to protect local mill jobs and to avoid further road construction in the area.

The minister made much of the closure of the Liskeard Road through the park after the logging is completed, but he was unable to make any commitment or any guarantee that no further roads would be built into the area around the park as well as the extension of the Red Squirrel Road.

This is a backing off on a commitment to the environmental assessment process which should have looked at how to protect the environment and, at the same time, ensure that local jobs were protected in the area.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NATIONAL TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I am delighted to rise today to inform the House that Ontario is celebrating the second annual National Tourism Awareness Week.

Just yesterday I attended a breakfast in Kitchener-Waterloo to kick off National Tourism Awareness Week activities there. I should mention that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) and the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) were there. At a noon-hour meeting, where members of the chambers of commerce from all over Ontario were present, I also gave a speech on National Tourism Awareness Week. The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) was there.

For seven days, Canadians from Newfoundland to the Yukon are organizing sightseeing tours, staging essay contests and sending town criers into the streets, all to spread the word about the importance of tourism.

Last year alone, travel expenditure in Ontario amounted to $9.3 billion. That added $1 billion to our tax revenues. This same money builds schools and hospitals, paves streets, helps the disadvantaged and maintains our standard of living in the province.

The millions of people who visit Ontario each year also boost employment in our province. In 1985, for example, tourism created the equivalent of more than 400,000 full-time jobs.

This week Ontarians are reminding themselves of the enormity of the world tourism industry. In 1985, it was worth $2.4 trillion. That was 12 per cent of the world’s gross national product. To expand our share of that market, the ministry has already provided hospitality training workshops to more than 5,000 tourism industry workers and we are leading another 40 workshops during National Tourism Awareness Week.

We want Ontario’s ambassadors to be the tour guides, the bellhops, the hotel managers, the people who keep the wheels of tourism oiled, the people whose warmth and enthusiasm prompt the tourist to return again and again.

I am proud to see Ontarians embracing National Tourism Awareness Week. They are proving that. By working together we stand ready to reap the enormous rewards of our growing tourism industry.

I would also like to congratulate the member for St. Catharines-Brock (Mr. Dietsch) for his statement today telling what great things are going on in the Niagara Peninsula to encourage tourism.

BRANTWOOD MANOR NURSING HOME

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am pleased to inform the House that last night my ministry was advised that an agreement has been reached on the sale of Brantwood Manor Nursing Home.

In order to conclude the sale, a number of steps will now be taken. First, the plan of the purchaser for the operation of the nursing home must be approved by the ministry for the issuance of a licence.

Second, the local union of the Canadian Union of Public Employees will review the conditions regarding payment of back wages owed to nursing home employees. It is expected the union will meet in the next several days to carry out its review. In the meantime, my ministry staff will immediately undertake presale procedures before issuing a licence. As part of this review, a public meeting will be called by the ministry to allow public comment on the proposed sale.

Given this turn of events, the ministry has halted plans to relocate the 116 residents of the home. I am hopeful this sale can be concluded without any further disruptions to the residents of Brantwood Manor.

Ministry staff have assured me that the protocols and procedures regarding the decision to issue a licence will be carried out as quickly as possible.

RESPONSES

NATIONAL TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK

Mr. Farnan: Every efficient business demands reinvestment in its future. It also demands that we be innovative and flexible to ensure we have the type of facility and attraction that will ensure our future and secure our desirability as a tourist attraction.

I put forward to the minister that, in order to celebrate National Tourism Awareness Week in a meaningful way, he should make a commitment that he will be active and show leadership in the concept of rails to trails. This is a resource we can use that is available to us. These trails run through several municipalities. It requires provincial intervention to make sure it happens. The minister has the position and the authority to interject and to give Ontario something that will be an investment in our tourist future. I ask the Minister of Tourism and Recreation not simply to sing the praises of tourism but to do something constructive about it.

BRANTWOOD MANOR NURSING HOME

Mr. Allen: I would like to respond to the statement respecting Brantwood Manor Nursing Home that the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) has just made.

Of course, it is with immense relief that all of us realize that some settlement appears to be in store that will keep 116 residents of that home in place and not have to go through the immense trauma, they and their families, of relocation at someplace more distant from the community. We appreciate the efforts of the ministry in seeking and reaching that kind of solution.

May I say, however, that it is not quite clear in the statement, first of all what the terms are with respect to the back wages or whether they will be acceptable to the union finally, although in general it is in favour of the settlement overall. Second, the minister says she is not completely certain that this deal will be completed.

May I say two things. The first is that this has to signal for us one of the major problems in the private sector of nursing home delivery, of seniors care in our province. It is simply unacceptable that a private operator can, for not just months but years, continue to defy not just normal collective bargaining procedures but the decisions of an arbitrator; hold out for that length of time, ultimately putting the sense of wellbeing of the residents themselves and the families in question through inordinate suffering and, at the end of the day, still not resolve that question but leave it in the hands of the ministry to have to clean up that mess. When a private sector operation puts us in that position, it seems to me it raises fundamental questions about the whole private sector nursing home operation in our province.

The second thing I want to say is that if this deal does not go through, I hope the minister will respond to the earlier requests of families made to the municipality and forwarded by the municipality to the minister, that she give very serious consideration to assisting the municipality in taking on this facility as a home for the aged in that region, as the second municipally operated home in Halton region.

1350

That, it seems to me, is a reasonable solution. If this deal falls through, it is the only solution that may lie down the road to make it possible for those residents to stay in their place and to continue to secure what, frankly, in that home is quite adequate care. The community has no problem with that, but some other aspects of this operation have given the community immense concern. We want to see the minister take that municipally owned option in hand and do something with it, if this deal does not go through.

Mr. Jackson: I am pleased to rise and respond on behalf of my constituents, the residents at Brantwood Manor. We are pleased about the negotiations that occurred over the course of last weekend, after the ministry had advised family members that negotiations had completely terminated. Due to the leadership of the three parties involved, they were able to effect an agreement.

What underscores the concern for the citizens of Burlington is our concern that the role of the Ministry of Health, and specifically the nursing homes branch, and the legislation that supports those ministries involved have left residents at Brantford Manor in such a vulnerable position. The minister’s role is, by her admission, at arm’s length and on the sidelines, and it appears there is something seriously wrong with legislation that would allow residents to be buffered in what amounted essentially to a labour dispute.

I might comment that the families in this facility, the residents and the families, have gone through severe emotional upheaval. There have been four months of on-again, off-again negotiations. There has been a loss of life associated with the nursing home during this period of time, and God only knows the degree to which the uncertainties of this home’s status may have contributed to those circumstances.

I might respond to the statements made by my colleague in the New Democratic Party. The issues here essentially are not around privatization or privately run nursing homes. In fact, this is the second time in Ontario’s history that a licence has been returned, both times on the basis of a labour dispute but the first instance was with a nonprofit run by a municipality, and at the centre of both those controversies was the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Interjections.

Mr. Jackson: Before we get into an ideological shouting match, all political parties in this province had better establish that the rights of acute-care, frail, elderly residents in this province must remain a number one priority.

What is absent in the minister’s announcement today is any assurance that the 16 or 17 members who have already been transferred out of Brantwood Manor will be given first right to return. I have that assurance from Mr. Sapsford, the director of the nursing homes branch, but the families are already calling me and asking if they will have the first right to return to their original residence since their evacuation and eviction was not of their own doing.

Quite frankly, we ask the minister to consider seriously section 85.1 of the Nursing Homes Act regulations, which allows for a 60-day notice for the return of a licence. It is apparent from the experience of Brantwood Manor that this time frame is unacceptable and inappropriate in terms of concluding negotiations in the hope of saving facilities, not only Brantwood but future facilities that may fall into difficulties.

Finally, this issue has left a profound impact and an image with the citizens of Burlington about how vulnerable citizens are in chronic care facilities all across Ontario. Clearly, legislation must be amended so that it responds in a more sensitive fashion to those senior citizens who were left with no one in their corner to advocate for them. We are very fortunate that the owners have been able to reach an agreement with CUPE in order to save this facility.

NATIONAL TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK

Mr. McLean: I want to comment briefly on National Tourism Awareness Week that the minister so lately disclosed today in talking about all the organizations he is supporting.

I want to say to the minister that I support this awareness week right across this province, but I think the minister should be made aware of the funding for the 50th anniversary of the Thousand Island Bridge, where the United States has put $200,000 into it while the minister has not put in one red cent, or a red tie.

What about the abandoned railways for nature trails that the minister has not done? What about the 14 per cent on gas tax that his government has increased for the tourists who come to this province?

I am very positive about tourism, but it is the people around the province such as the Huronia Tourist Association and the Georgian Lakelands Travel Association who make the tourism here in Ontario that the people love to come and enjoy.

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order under standing order 28(a) dealing with ministerial statements: in view of the fact that there was only one statement today of any substance, we are, quite frankly, on this side of the House shocked that there was no statement from the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio).

We had a press conference. We had dozens of releases. We had a press kit. We had media availability. We have dozens of videotapes for TV stations all around the province. We have two ministers who have jigsawed back and forth for the last two or three years in this province trying to come to grips with what are really pretty straightforward issues. We have flip-flops from one minister on the one hand; we have flip-flops from another minister on the other hand.

I think it is shocking and a glaring indictment on where this government thinks it is going -- or the fact that it does not know where it is going -- that we had no statement today. I think it is a disregard for the members and the importance of the Legislature that there is no statement today on this matter.

Mr. Wildman: It is, I think, an indication of the arrogance of this government that ministers would continually make announcements outside of the House and give press releases to the press without making these statements to the assembly and to the members first.

We had that example with the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) last week, when she gave the press the announcement of the reorganization of the ministry before any announcement in the House.

Today, we have a major press conference by two ministers of the crown and then they do not even deem it necessary to make any statement to this Legislature. There was not a large number of statements which would have meant there was not enough time; there was more than enough time.

Why do this government’s ministers not realize that the assembly is where they are elected to make these kinds of announcements, instead of these glamorous-type press conferences without any real substance? Why are the ministers not dealing with the House in the way it should be dealt with?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I must report to the House that there were interested people from that party and that one at the conference downstairs in this building. They were interested enough to come and they were able to discuss it in great detail. We are prepared to discuss it at any time the members choose.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEMAGAMI ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, who I suspect was ashamed to make his announcement in this House today because my question concerns the rape of Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater park which the minister condones by his decision not to have an environmental hearing on that road.

I would like to ask the minister how he can possibly justify his decision not to have an environmental assessment hearing at which all parties could be present and at which all alternatives could be canvassed. It is now almost two years since an environmental assessment was requested. The minister has received over 170 submissions from the public asking for a hearing. Subsection 12(2) of the Environmental Assessment Act says that the minister shall hold a public hearing when so requested. How does the minister justify his decision?

1400

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The first contention from the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore is totally erroneous. Let us get this on the record. This is not as she describes it, “the rape of the Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater park,” because, in fact, this decision does not affect the park. There is not logging taking place in that park and she should know there is not logging taking place in that park. In fact, the area to be protected has been increased by almost 40 per cent by three new waterway parks being added to this park.

That is not all. The member will know as well that prior to the decision which was announced this morning by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and by me, there were a number of uses that could have been contemplated for that particular park. As a result of that announcement, that park today is a wilderness park. It was not a wilderness park before 12:30 p.m. today and that announcement.

I want to indicate that the information provided by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore is, I know, inadvertently erroneous, but it is simply not accurate to say so.

Mrs. Grier: The announcement the minister has made and the justification he gives show that he has been bushwhacked by the cabinet on the question of protecting the environment.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mrs. Grier: In the light of the rhetoric we have heard about protection of the environment, in the light of the minister’s alleged commitment to the Brundtland commission and his commitment that there would be no economic decisions made without the environment being given full and equal place in any of those decisions, how can the minister justify the signal that he is sending to this province, that when the Environmental Assessment Act can be ignored that is what is going to be done by this ministry? What does the minister say to the people of this province who look to the Environmental Assessment Act to protect the environment?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In fact, the member will know that a full environmental assessment of this particular project has been undertaken. That environmental assessment document has been reviewed by 14 ministries of the government of Ontario. In addition to that, it has been looked at carefully by Environment Canada. There are changes that were made to the document as a result of the discussions between ministries and the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The member will know that in four out of five instances where there is an environmental assessment, no hearing, in fact, takes place. She will also know that Dr. Daniel has undertaken a consultative process with people in the area. She will also know that the Temagami area council. which is being established by the Minister of Natural Resources, is, in fact, going to have the opportunity for further input.

The member will know that at the present time there is an unprecedented class environmental assessment taking place in the province of Ontario on its entire forest management activities from one end of the province to the other, for which $300,000 in intervener funding has been provided by the government of Ontario, where people will have the opportunity, with excellent hearing officers in attendance.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wildman: The minister has said there was a full environmental assessment, but he has not indicated that this environmental assessment was done simply on the road allowance; it was not done on the forestry operations. He also says that Environment Canada reviewed this, but in his own documents released today it says Environment Canada had “no comment.”

Can the minister explain why he is justifying the failure to order an environmental assessment hearing which would look not only at the environmental impact but also at the possibility of reallocating timber limits to protect local employment?

When he says it was because of a delay, does he not admit the delay was on the part of this government in appointing the working group in the first place, which took so many months to make a decision and then could not even come to one decision at all?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I want to say to the member that considerable input has been received in this through Dr. Daniel’s particular endeavour and will continue through the class environmental assessment and the other. I know these are difficult decisions to make and the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) knows how difficult it is to apply the Environmental Assessment Act.

When my good friend was in a difficult situation in his own riding of Algoma -- I understand this fully; I do not say this in any critical way of him -- and when there was the Magpie River hydroelectric project for the Wawa area, I remember the member for Algoma coming down with the reeve and some other people and saying we should not proceed with an environmental assessment.

In fairness to the member for Algoma, I understand there are people in northern Ontario who feel there are difficult decisions that have to be made in these matters and that a government has to weigh everything in consideration. With the decision that has been announced, in addition to the 53 new regulated parks announced by the Minister of Natural Resources today, we have sought that balance.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Thousands of children are getting substandard child care in the city of Toronto because the minister and his government refuse to put their dollars fully into quality-based nonprofit child care operations in this province.

That is the message of Sharon West’s recent study of 431 day care centres in Toronto, comprising 23,000 spaces. By my calculation, 8,600 of those kids or about a third of those involved in the study are in for-profit centres that do not have enough qualified staff, receive two times the average of complaints, take the longest time to resolve problems, have short-term restricted licences and require most of the ministry’s inspection and enforcement time.

When is the minister going to recognize that for-profit and child care do not go together and commit himself to a child care policy that will be based on not-for-profit and community-run centres that have full parental involvement with the children involved?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is well aware of the fact that last December 7, I believe it was, I made a clear statement in this House that all future growth in this province with respect to government support in child care would take place in the nonprofit sector. I stand by that today. The member will also remember, however, that I said at the same time that 40 per cent of the child care spaces in this province were in the commercial sector and that if he, like I and all of the other people out there concerned about child care were truly concerned about the quality available to every single child regardless of what kind of centre he or she was in, then we had to provide an equity of resources to all of them.

That is exactly what this document says. I would also remind the honourable member that at about the same time a document prepared for the federal government, which was looking into this same issue, clearly indicated that the problem with commercial centres versus nonprofit centres was with the equity of resources that are available to them. That is the commitment I have made: (1), that all growth will be in the nonprofit sector; but (2), as long as there is a substantial sector of child care in the commercial sector, I want to be sure, and I hope he agrees, that the quality of care available to them has got to be the same.

Mr. Allen: The minister does not realize it, but what he has just said is that he is prepared to tolerate substandard care in the commercial sector. Why is that?

Mr. Pelissero: That’s not what he said.

Mr. Allen: Yes, that is true.

Mr. Pelissero: That’s not what he said.

Mr. Allen: That is true, because the minister --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

1410

Mr. Allen: The other day in the press the minister said exactly what he said by implication today; that is, that these centres would require equal resources to perform equally.

This study was done at a time when the not-for-profits and the for-profits were getting exactly the same funding sources from government to operate. He knows that. It therefore demonstrates that the for-profit sector could not perform equally with the not-for-profit when they had equal resources. The logic of that situation is that he will have to give more money to the for-profits in order to get equal results out of them.

Is that what the minister intends, to pay from public funds what in reality is a profit margin that goes straight into the pockets of the owners who run those centres rather than to better care for children?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have a suspicion the honourable member had his supplementary prepared before I answered the original question, because I clearly said to the him that I am not prepared to tolerate two levels of quality of care. That is why I believe there has to be equity of resources. That is clearly what I said.

The second point I indicated was that there is evidence that there is inequity of resources. The member obviously is aware of the fact that this study was done in Metropolitan Toronto only. The city of Toronto, for example, has provided additional grants during the time this study was taking place to the nonprofit sector that it did not provide to the commercial sector. Our ministry provided additional capital grants to the nonprofit sector that it did not provide to the commercial sector during the time this study was taking place.

In fact, there was an inequity of resources. We believe that if we are going to provide quality resources and quality care to both of them, there has to be an equity.

I would also point out to the honourable member that in terms of putting money in pockets, he is probably aware that the city of Toronto has a clear guideline. In terms of providing subsidized spaces to commercial centres, they will only permit a 10 per cent level of profitability. That is the clear limit. There is a cap on that. I do not believe that is excessive.

Mr. Allen: The minister may not think it is excessive, but it is 10 per cent of the dollars that are not going to the kids. That is all I know.

Perhaps we could drive it home with the minister and demonstrate in a graphic form exactly what the situation is, that what we have here, in fact, is that 99 of 133 complaints were lodged against the commercial sector.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: That is not quite as good as yours. The printing is a little small.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Get Mel to do the chart. He has a print shop.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr. Allen: It is interesting how the members opposite object to a little elementary education.

Hon. Mr. Scott: No, we want Mel to do it so we can see it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a final supplementary?

Mr. Allen: I do, Mr. Speaker. It is based on the fact that these statistics show that 99 of 133 complaints were lodged against the commercials as against the others. Those complaints ranged across serious issues -- administrative policies, shortness of staff, nutrition, sanitation, safety and other matters of concern to parents when they lodge their children with day care operators.

What I want to ask the minister again is my first question. Under these circumstances, is he prepared to move his policies in another direction, that is, to move towards a system that is nonprofit and leave the profits to one side, so people can access it as they wish? Will he not move towards a complete nonprofit system, community-based and parentally involved?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would draw the honourable member’s attention to page 26 of the report that he has referred to with respect to his question. The three top concerns expressed there are administration, indoor equipment and playground.

The concerns that are way down at the bottom of the list, which I would suggest to the honourable member are much more critical, are such things as staff-child ratio, nutrition, sanitation, program and staff development. I think that if the honourable member wants to make a comparison of priorities, let him make that one.

Since we are talking about charts, I also point out to the honourable member that this chart is now being posted in day care centres, commercial and nonprofit, for the benefit of parents. It clearly outlines what is expected in those centres. It gives the parent an opportunity to review it. The headings are staffing, program, discipline, health and safety and the licence. The parents have an opportunity to look at it and make up their own minds.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to suggest that the first two questions and responses took 17 minutes, and that is irresponsible.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now we are almost at 18 minutes. New question, the member for Sarnia.

MINISTRY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

Mr. Brandt: I do not know whether I can participate in this question period. I did not bring along a chart today, so I feel rather ill-equipped. My question is to the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet. It is with respect to a series of questions we have raised with the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) relative to the bloated budget he brought in just a few weeks ago.

Whenever we have raised questions with respect to the necessary increases in that budget, the Treasurer has consistently indicated that those increases were necessary to pay for new hospital beds, for classrooms in our educational system and for other facilities of that type.

I would like to ask the minister, if that in fact is the case, how can he justify in the last four years a 43 per cent increase in administrative costs alone, clearly twice the rate of inflation over that period of time? How can he justify that kind of an increase? I would rather not have a response indicating he has built another bridge, because clearly he has not.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not build bridges, but I do look at administrative activities inside the government. I can tell the honourable member that from my point of view he should probably look to the number of programs that have been put in place and the fact that we cannot put in place programs and administrative opportunities without adding staff, which also takes up some salary dollars.

There is no question in my mind that the honourable gentleman probably does not understand when he says, on one hand, to spend more on hospital care and other things or to do more for people in some areas, that we also require staff to implement those programs. In fact, that has been very well put by the Treasurer in his response when he deals with the questions respecting the very sensible, tough but fair-minded budget which he brought in not too long ago.

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: While the Treasurer and some of his colleagues are applauding that response, clearly the Chairman of Management Board should know that the area of the budget he is talking about is in a separate section and is assigned to that particular service area specifically and has nothing whatever to do with the administrative costs I am talking about.

I would like to zero in for a moment on another budget and another ministry to get as clear as we can on this question. Over the last four years, the administrative costs in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs have gone up by 105 per cent, about four to five times the rate of inflation. This has nothing to do with programs and nothing to do with services to people but only to do with bureaucracy and administrative costs. How does the Chairman of Management Board justify that?

1420

Hon. Mr. Elston: If the honourable gentleman would be, we would say, more sure of the information he is trying to lay on the floor of the House, he would understand that there would be, for the information of the public, the necessity to know that a new ministry was created. When Housing was set aside and Municipal Affairs set aside, the honourable gentleman will understand that there were certain needs to fulfil in relation to the administrative opportunities. I think that because this government has a very high priority on working very hard on problems associated not only with housing but also with municipal affairs, there is a need to put in place the administrative apparatus which is required to fulfil the mandates of our policy progress.

Mr. Brandt: I would like to remind the minister that he is supposed to be the guardian of the public purse and he has not been the guardian of the public purse. Putting him in charge of that public purse is like putting Colonel Sanders in charge of the chickens.

Since he justified the Ministry of Municipal Affairs by the changes that took place within that ministry, how can the minister justify in the Ministry of Skills Development over the last four years an increase of 272 per cent in that ministry when 77 cents out of every dollar is not going for new programs and is not going for the delivery of services to people, but is going only and singularly for administrative costs? How in the world can he justify that kind of an unconscionable increase, which is coming out of the taxpayers’ pockets right across this province? What he raised gasoline taxes and the sales tax for --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Mr. Brandt: -- was to pay for that bloated bureaucracy.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman likes to talk about bloated bureaucracies. I just have to remind the honourable gentlemen that when this government came to power there was a decision with respect to the need to proceed fully with programs in the skills development area. We set up, therefore, a separate administration to deal with very important policy issues.

The honourable gentleman likes to flash back to times when we were just in the process of creating the ministry and draw comparisons. That is fair, but he also has to accept some of the results of setting up a new ministry operation so that we can address problem areas which were, we felt, not properly attended to earlier. I can agree with the honourable gentleman that there have been cost increases. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you would be very well aware indeed of the same type of increases which have been foisted upon the Legislature by a demanding opposition that says it has not got enough money to run its own affairs.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question has been dealt with.

Mr. Eves: If the Chairman of the Management Board would care to look at the estimates, he would readily see it is not going to the new programs at all.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Eves: My question is for the Minister of Health. Does the minister support staff layoffs as a means of reducing hospital deficits?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We are working very closely with all the hospitals in this province because our goal is to have a well-planned, well-managed health system.

Mr. Eves: The minister will be aware that labour accounts for about 80 per cent of the cost of every hospital budget. She is also aware, of course, that nurses comprise by far the largest group of hospital workers and professional health care workers. I find it quite unbelievable that the minister would think that no layoffs will occur if hospitals throughout this province are to meet her ministry’s directive that they are to eliminate their deficits.

We have already seen examples with respect to St. Mary’s General Hospital in Timmins and Cambridge Memorial Hospital, where this is the case. Will the minister make a commitment to the Legislature today that no staff will be laid off as a result of her directive and her heavy-handed confrontational approach to hospital deficits?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Our goal is to make sure that hospitals are fairly funded for the programs which have been approved by the ministry. If we are going to have ad hoc decision-making by hospitals acting independently, we will have an open-ended, unplanned, unmanaged health care system, which the member opposite seems to be advocating.

Mr. Eves: Riverside Hospital in Ottawa is included in the minister’s list of 22 hospitals under review for chronic deficits, to quote her. Riverside, for her information, incurred its first operating deficit ever in the 1987-1988 year. That is the first time it ever incurred a deficit. It is not a chronic case of deficits with respect to Riverside at all.

Eleanor Dunn, the chairperson of the board of trustees of Riverside Hospital, says: “The consequences of Riverside Hospital meeting this directive from the Ministry of Health are extremely serious. The hospital will be compelled to restrict services across the board and, in particular, may have to close approximately 40 beds for the remainder of the year... Additionally...it will necessitate the layoff of approximately 50 full-time equivalent staff personnel.

“We urge you to intervene on our behalf, not simply because the hospital is in serious financial difficulty, but more so because of the fact that the hospital has proven itself to be an extremely efficient and effectively managed institution. To impose this penalty on the hospital would be most unjust to the community.”

Will the minister help this hospital as she has helped St. Mary’s General Hospital in Timmins. and will she assure this House --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: There are many people in this province who agree with our approach to have a well-planned, well-managed health care system. I would like to quote the associate professor of health administration from the University of Toronto, who said. “If you are trying to make the system run effectively -- and it is one of the best systems going; it is an excellent health care system -- you have to reward people who manage well and you have got to not reward the people who break the rules and end up then with a system that isn’t working well.”

I sympathize with the hospitals in this province. A procession of Tory ministers for years told them that deficit funding was overspending. We want to fund hospitals fairly, but we have told them that we are going to do what we have said we are going to do, that is, bring an end to deficits within the hospital sector and work with them to make sure they maintain essential services in their communities.

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Farnan: I am hoping the Minister of Health is a visual learner. The minister will notice that in 1982 --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a question?

Mr. Farnan: For the past week, the minister would not answer a question. Now the Liberals will not listen to a question.

The minister will recognize that the per diem unit cost in Cambridge in 1982 was $43 less than the average hospital in its group. By 1987-88, the per diem unit cost was $81. for every unit for every day, less than for the other hospitals.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Farnan: Will the minister recognize, as the Woods Gordon report recognized, that Cambridge Memorial Hospital is cost-effective, well run and providing the necessary services? Will the minister recognize that, based on these figures which totally prove --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been well asked.

1430

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: If a few hospitals insist on starting programs which have not been approved by the ministry, then they place in jeopardy the entire health care system. Cambridge Memorial Hospital has had increases of 41 per cent in the past few years.

The reason I have sent in an investigator is because we know that there have been unapproved programs which are jeopardizing those hospitals that have managed well and also have needs and want their programs approved. The member opposite and his party do not seem to realize that we do not have a bottomless pit; we must plan well and then manage the resources we are given.

Mr. Farnan: This is going to be a little bit more difficult for the minister because it is a linear graph, but it gets across the same point. She can see how the difference in the cost-effectiveness of the Cambridge hospital exists: $81 per day per unit. If indeed the Cambridge hospital had received the average unit per diem for the other hospitals in its group, it would have cost $49 million more in the last six years. What services is this minister going to cut? We have an effective hospital. Show that we are not effective. The report says we are. Tell us the services she wants to cut.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked again.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The issue very simply is who plans and who approves, and then how we manage this health care system.

We know that not every hospital can be everything to everybody, and I am not the only one who is saying this. Here is another quote that I heard recently. Let me give this to the member because maybe this will help him: “The key in not breaking the bank is to make the best use of what we are spending, and that means not being everything to everyone in every institution and better co-ordination between the hospitals and the communities so that people are treated more comfortably at home and in their communities and only use the institutions when it is necessary to do so.”

TEMAGAMI ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. Pope: I have a question to the Minister of Natural Resources with respect to the Temagami wilderness area. It is clear there is no point in going to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). He has abrogated his responsibilities by denying an environmental assessment hearing that he could have completed a year ago if he had really wanted to expedite it.

Mr. Speaker: The question is to?

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Given the fact that he and the Minister of the Environment made this decision today, does he not think that northern Ontario should decide its own destiny instead of being dictated to from the south or from pressure groups who say they are from the north but are being paid from the south?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have no problem with the initiatives that this government has taken with the people in northern Ontario; many more than that government ever chose to do in the past. We make no apologies about how we treat northern Ontario. Yes, it has every right to fulfil a role in its future, and I want to tell the members it has done that very well.

We are responding to the uses right across this province. The decision that was made today is one that is going to take into account the best interests of those people who want to enjoy the north, but more properly the people who live in the north. We have done those things. It has been an excellent exercise, and I am pleased to have worked with the Minister of the Environment to accomplish this.

Mr. Pope: My first question was not in my own words. Those were the words of the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) last Friday in Kirkland Lake, and they indicate precisely the kind of paternalism the minister has just engaged in his answer. Why has he ignored the opinion of virtually every organized group in northern Ontario? Why has he ignored the opinion of municipal leaders?

Why has he ignored the opinion often expressed throughout northern Ontario in the last three months by his own Minister of Northern Development and gone ahead, mucked in this issue and overturned what 10,000 Ontarians said in 1983 and which virtually every group in northeastern Ontario supports? Why has he sandbagged his Minister of Northern Development on this issue?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That has not been the case at all. The difficulty that member has as a former minister is that the government of the day prepared a document called the blue book, which had literally thousands of hours of study as to where parks should go in Ontario. This individual chose to set the book aside and decide that he would have his program put in its place.

I have taken the time now to study that first document. I found it excellent. I am returning the parks of Ontario to make them people parks; and that is very important, not only for the people of southern Ontario but very properly for the people of northern Ontario.

We are not being patronizing. When we move a whole forestry section from this ministry in Toronto to northern Ontario -- which those people opposite did not see fit to do for 40 years -- we are not being patronizing. We are telling the people of Ontario they were never represented by people like the member, but they are now being represented.

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Chiarelli: My question is to the Minister of Health and it relates to the provision of community-based health services in the Ottawa area. In September last year, her ministry announced that it would provide startup funding and operating funds to the Pinecrest-Queensway Community Service Centre to establish a community health clinic in Ottawa West. The announcement was most welcome to the people in Ottawa West.

My question to the minister is this: to date the health clinic has not been established, and the people in Ottawa West are wondering what the status is of this project and when they might receive services.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to thank the member for his question. My priority is to see the expansion of community-based services, and I do not believe that community-based services should have to compete unfairly with the institutional sector. Over the past 16 months, we have approved a number of initiatives in the Ottawa area in the area of community-based programming. There are two community health centres scheduled to open. I understand that the Pinecrest-Queensway centre has had some difficulty in securing a site, but it should be functioning this fall, I think, and the Southeast Ottawa Community Resources Centre should be open this fall as well, I believe. I expect that both will make a valuable contribution, and both are part of our commitment to the doubling of people served by community health centres and health service organizations over the next few years.

Mr. Chiarelli: For the benefit of the House, and particularly the misguided member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling), who is not in the House today but who last week accused this government of doing nothing to provide community-based health services, could the minister tell us what initiatives her government is taking across the province to provide community-based health services?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: At the present time, there are some 400 community-based programs across the province. But I believe it is important for us to make significant progress in that area, and in fact we have. A significant amount of money in recent times has gone into the approval of community-based centres in the Ottawa area as well as around the province. I would like to mention two specific initiatives: $360,000 for three new alcohol and drug programs in the Ottawa area, as well as $300,000 for health promotion programs at the Centertown Community Health Centre, just as an example of the sorts of things we are attempting to do.

My priority, as I said, is to see that shift. There are a number of programs presently being done in hospitals which could be done in the community, thus relieving pressures on the hospital sector. I think there are many opportunities for expansion of community-based services. I am committed to doing that.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I heard the minister, in response to a question, quoting from some professor at the University of Toronto who was saying that good management should be rewarded. I wonder if the minister is aware of the conclusions of the operational review of the Riverside Hospital of Ottawa conducted by Touche Ross for the Ministry of Health.

The first conclusion is as follows: “(I) We believe that the Riverside is a well-managed hospital which has been able to control expenditures and to maintain a consistently high level of productivity under very tight operating conditions.”

If that is in fact the conclusion of Touche Ross, that the Riverside Hospital is well managed, and if that is the conclusion with respect to other hospitals that are now running a deficit for reasons beyond their control, why in the name of goodness is the minister forcing these well-managed institutions -- according to the minister’s own studies -- to cut beds, to lay off staff and to reduce service to people who are sick?

1440

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have said a number of times in this House, and let me say to the Leader of the Opposition, that our goal is to fairly fund hospitals. We began a two-pronged approach to do that. The first is to determine what the chronic problems are.

We believe on this side of the House that we should not have an open-ended funding system. In order to achieve that, what we have to do is insist -- and that is really what the issue is; it is a planning issue -- that before hospitals expand programs and start new programs, they receive ministry approval.

We are working with some of the hospitals that are experiencing problems, and where we have approved programs we will ensure that they are appropriately funded, as we did with St. Mary’s General Hospital, for example.

I have not reviewed the specific case. Ministry officials now have those 22 reviews, and they are reviewing them. As cases are brought forward of legitimate programs which have not been adequately funded, we are addressing those. Where we have unapproved programs and unplanned expansion, we are addressing those as well.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister wants to talk about open-ended. She is cutting back exclusively on hospitals, whose budgets have increased by 66.3 per cent from 1982-83 until 1988-89. I would like to ask the minister how she can justify singling out hospitals as the only area in her budget which is being subjected to this kind of attack when in fact transfer payments to physicians and practitioners have increased in the same period not by 66 per cent but by 117.8 per cent; when the Ontario drug benefit plan has gone up in the same period not by 66.3 per cent but by 168.9 per cent -- she wants to talk about open-ended -- and when laboratories were up, until 1986-87, not by 66 per cent but by over 80 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to ask the minister, how can she have the effrontery to come into this House and talk about planning and about how you have to have controls when the only institutions that are being affected in this way are hospitals, in a totally unplanned, anarchistic way which is hurting patients, when the rest of the system is right out of control and her own figures show it?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. He knows the Ontario health insurance plan and the Ontario drug benefit plan are under review. As well, he knows they are open-ended programs. What he is saying is that we should do exactly the same and have an open-ended program on the hospitals side; that we should not insist on good management and good planning.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would say to him, what we are attempting to do is bring some predictability to the hospital sector, treat them fairly and insist that we have the kind of planning and the management that will not jeopardize our health care system, and he knows it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question. The Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Health, order. The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot).

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I recall some time ago a member getting up on a point of order referring to the length of time, I would not say all wasted, but the length of time taken for a number of questions. New question?

CHILD CARE STUDY

Mrs. Cunningham: In light of the lack of respect of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) for this House earlier this afternoon, my question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services, who I think set a precedent for his colleague’s behaviour this past weekend. I am talking about an important report on day care.

A newspaper, the Toronto Star, asked for the report. The Star wrote the questions. The ministry paid the researcher. She reported back to the same newspaper. They then reported it as news. Is this the method by which the minister plans to communicate with elected members of this House?

Mr. Cureatz: No respect for the House.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Why don’t you ever complain about the Sun?

Mr. Runciman: They’re not in your pocket.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will have to remind you again of 24(b). Minister.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware of the fact that in January this year we passed the freedom-of-information legislation. That means that anyone in the public domain is free to ask for information from this ministry or any other ministry of government.

When we received the request, which was a legitimate request, it became relatively apparent that the only way we could respond to it was to do a complete search of our files for the period requested. We indicated to the reporter that we were prepared to do that since that was information we as a ministry would want to collect anyway. This was not new research; it was simply an analysis of our files.

Since we do not have the staff to do that, we brought someone in to do it for us. We had to have someone who knew how to read the files and how to interpret the questions properly. The request was a legitimate one. The information was there. We collected it in that particular way, and we passed it on to the person who asked for it.

This was not my research. It was not my initial question. It was not information that I had prepared to bring before the House. I think it was a legitimate question, and I think the response was handled in an appropriate way.

Mrs. Cunningham: The bottom line is that the people of this province paid for that report. I am an elected representative, and I come here to work on behalf of the people who elected me. I do not appreciate having matters that are important to me and my colleagues brought to my attention on the weekend when I am at my home in London, especially on an important matter such as direct grants to day care centres, direct grants to commercial operators.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Never on Sunday.

Hon. Mr. Elston: “Please call me between nine and 3:30.”

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Thank God you people forgot to pass freedom of information.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that information would bring a question to your mind.

Mrs. Cunningham: The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) advised me that I should be at the beach. I was not at the beach. I was doing my work, or trying to do my work, on behalf of the citizens.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interjections are out of order. As a matter of fact, the question period may soon be over. I will just wait.

Mrs. Cunningham: I do not think there really is an excuse for this. Direct grants to commercial centres are an important issue, and I should probably be criticizing the minister for the action he took.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mrs. Cunningham: What I am doing is asking the minister, will he please assure this House that elected members of this government will receive reports that are as important as the one he gave to the Toronto Star this past Saturday?

1450

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member will realize that it has always been the practice of this minister to respond as openly and as fully as possible to any question asked by any honourable member in this House. I have also attempted to respond to any question asked by members of the news media, and I have also attempted to answer any question asked by the public. I have always done that and I will continue to do that.

The member will also realize -- she can ask any of her colleagues -- that in the three years I have been minister I have never made an announcement affecting my ministry or this government outside of this House before I made it in the House, provided it was my announcement.

I point out to the honourable member that had I collected that information to make a report, it would have come here first. That is not the way the question was put. I think it was legitimately put and I think it was legitimately responded to. If I were asked the same kind of question again, I would respond in the same way.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mrs. LeBourdais: My question is to the Minister of Education regarding religious education in the province’s schools. As I am sure the minister is aware, concerns are being expressed by a number of groups that our system of education is not providing adequately for the religious education needs of our students. Within this context, the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) plans to bring forward a resolution addressing this question within the next few days.

Would the minister provide the House with some understanding of what his ministry is doing to address the needs of students and the demands of religious groups with respect to religious education, while at the same time protecting the right to freedom from religion where that is an individual’s choice?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to thank the member for her excellent question. I want to indicate to her and to members of the House that over the course of the past several months we have been working very closely with the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) in an effort to establish a multifaith committee to look at the issue of religious education in our school system.

The committee will have as its task the responsibility to look at and address some of the very real concerns that have been expressed to me, not only by many religious leaders across this province but also by those representing various cultural groups.

Mrs. LeBourdais: I am pleased to learn of the minister’s intention to strike a multifaith committee in the near future. I have no doubt that the major faiths will be asked to take part in this endeavour and will receive appropriate representation.

Can the minister explain how he will provide for appropriate representation for other religious groups, for those members of our society who do not belong to a particular faith and for those who practise no religion?

Hon. Mr. Ward: Obviously, that will be one of the difficult issues that must be addressed in the consideration of the responsibilities of this commission, and certainly the committee will have as its responsibility an obligation to address those divergent opinions.

TREE PLANTING

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources related to his comments last week in answer to my question about contracting out of ministry jobs in forestry. The minister indicated that if anyone was being harmed by his ministry’s policy, he should contact the minister directly.

How can he square that statement with the information I received from the local employees in Blind River that they wrote to the minister over a month ago and simply received a perfunctory acknowledgement from his office?

Also, how can he square it with the statement made in a letter he wrote to the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), which states, “My ministry will continue to explore ways to conduct forestry activity so as to encourage local employment opportunity through the private sector”?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Of course, the private sector is very much involved in forestry practices in the province. To the degree that I can influence them to hire local people, I am going to do that whenever I can.

The fact that there are some of those initiatives taking place out there has to do with the ministry deciding we are going to impact on the great number of people who were in my ministry. Over the past four or five years, we have reduced the ministry regular staff by some 10 per cent.

Mr. Wildman: We are not talking about regular staff.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We have also done that with the staff on contract. I think that just shows good management, that we are going to go out there and get the forests kept in the way we have with a reduction in staff.

For the purpose of asking private contractors to hire local help where they can, I am prepared to do that at any time. I have done that for many of the member’s people on that side.

Mr. Wildman: That is not what the minister said in 1985 about contracting out.

Can the minister assure the House that the employees employed by private contractors are living and working under adequate conditions? Can he assure us that the conditions which are now being experienced by workers who work for RHIZA Reforestation Inc., which has a contract for 263,000 trees in the Blind River district, are not typical? There were no washroom facilities and no shower facilities. The employees were given only porridge for breakfast and Kraft Dinner for supper and had to pay $15 a day for that food. They had no hard hats, no regulation work boots and they were being transported back and forth to work in a closed van with gasoline --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member placed a number of questions.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I need not remind the honourable member that one of the first initiatives I took as minister was to address the situation where some of the workers had not been paid. I guaranteed that they were going to receive their pay regardless of whether the contractors paid it. I wanted to show that my faith in the kind of direction which has been given out there is one I am prepared to support. If there is going to be contracting out, I am going to guarantee that the young people will be paid; next, I am going to guarantee, to the degree I can, that working conditions are going to be acceptable.

When the member brings these things to my attention, I want to refer him to the practice we now have of having people who are going to participate in working for the ministry go through phases of what we expect of them. If they do not live up to those standards, I am --

Mr. Reville: Did you ever see The Grapes of Wrath?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I do not understand the reaction, because what I am saying is that they are directed in the way they are supposed to participate with their help. I do not understand the big joke from the member on the other side, but I take that very seriously. The member brings it to my attention. I am saying they are directed as to how they should be treated, and it is my --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ACCESS FUND

Mr. J. M. Johnson: My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. The access fund is operated jointly by the minister’s office and the Office for Disabled Persons. The fund was established to increase the physical access of disabled persons and senior citizens to existing community facilities. An example would be the installation of an elevator.

However, her ministry and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) have refused to assist Rose Andrews, project manager of Meadowview Place, a two-storey senior citizens’ apartment building in the township of Erin, in the county of Wellington, to install a chair lift or an elevator in this nonprofit housing corporation.

When seniors living in second-floor senior citizens’ apartments become disabled through a stroke, a heart attack or even an accident, they are then trapped in their homes without access, because they cannot use the stairs.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Does the minister realize that both she and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons are forcing these disabled seniors to move out of their homes and into nursing homes because they will not provide the access?

1500

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: I am pleased to answer the questions from the honourable member across the floor. The access fund has particular criteria that are used to determine the community organizations that will be able to access the particular fund. Accessibility for disabled and seniors is, of course, the number one criterion.

The fund is particularly to benefit community organizations that are nonprofit, such as community halls, legion halls and churches. Housing organizations do not fall under that particular criterion, but I should tell the member that we have been able to assist some 71 organizations throughout the province to date, and we now have some $4 million in applications before us. He can see that community organizations which do fit the criteria are certainly taking advantage of the fund he mentioned.

I would be more than happy to look into any particular case he has for me. If he would give those details to me, I will check and see how the criteria fit, because of course our goal is to keep seniors and the disabled in the community. The access fund is certainly a different sort of fund and perhaps there is another area we can look into through the Ministry of Housing, with that particular focus in mind.

Mr. Speaker: That completes that question and supplementary. The time for oral questions has expired.

PETITIONS

ÉCOLE FRANÇAISE SAINTE-BRIGITTE

M. Pouliot: À l’honorable lieutenant-gouverneur et à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario:

« Nous, les soussignés, sollicitons l’autorisation du parlement de l’Ontario et tenons à dire au ministre de l’Education, de :

« Garder notre école française Sainte-Brigitte à Nakina. Nous nous opposons à la proposition adoptée par le Conseil scolaire des écoles séparées de la région du Supérieur-Nord, à ce que nos enfants soient obligés de se déplacer quotidiennement de Nakina à Geraldton, une distance de 142 kilomètres aller-retour et en plus, sur une route médiocre. »

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition signed by 5,000 irate Ontario taxpayers which reads as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

We have 5,000 petitions signed, I have attached my signature and I am pleased to submit them.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr. Faubert: I have a petition from a number of supporters of the Save the Rouge Valley organization, 35 in number, who wish to submit this on their behalf.

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas the Rouge Valley system contains an abundance of natural beauty and sites of historical importance and archaeological significance; and

“Whereas the Rouge Valley system is a unique oasis of nature found within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto; and

“Whereas the Ontario government has indicated its continuing commitment to the environment through its generous support programs towards preserving the Rouge Valley system and the Carolinian forest, and the historic and archaeological sites contained within;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, hereby petition the government of Ontario to give every consideration to the various alternatives available to them to ensure that the Rouge Valley system be preserved so that future generations may have the opportunity to enjoy them; these alternatives include a provincial park or a national heritage park.”

I have appended my signature thereto.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. M. C. Ray: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 139 residents of Windsor and Essex county, said signatures collected at Living Lighting in Devonshire Mall. It is not possible to tell whether or not they were irate, but they are none the less in opposition to Sunday shopping.

Mr. Cordiano: I have a similar petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor from the Ontario Korean Businessmen’s Association. They have collected a couple of thousand signatures. I had to count them in an instant.

Mr. Jackson: Isn’t it great when you read them?

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Sit down and stand up later.

Mr. Cordiano: Give me a break. Come on; I have not done this very often. It numbers, as I say, some 2,000. I would like to submit those.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Harris: I have a petition signed by 5,000 -- I am not sure whether it is 5,000; it is a whole whack of irate taxpayers in Ontario -- which reads as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario;

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

ONTARIO HYDRO ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRE

Miss Martel: This is a petition signed by residents of the village of Warren, the township of Ratter and Dunnet and neighbouring municipalities, all of whom would be affected by a move by Ontario Hydro. The petition is to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads:

“Whereas Ontario Hydro is presently undergoing a study to review the organizational structure of the Warren area facility, resulting in the possible relocation of the customer service and administration department to North Bay;

“And whereas our rural northern municipalities are small and closely knit, with no industry, limited resources and scarce job opportunities for our young people;

“And whereas the loss of permanent and part-time job positions will adversely affect our community business, financial and social structure;

“And whereas Hydro customer satisfaction in our area would be greatly reduced;

“Now therefore be it resolved that we hereby request the provincial government and Ontario Hydro to do everything possible to ensure that Ontario Hydro in Warren remains status quo.”

I agree with them and I have affixed my signature to this petition.

INSTITUTIONAL CARE WORKERS

Mr. Owen: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“We wish to bring to your attention our discontent with the totally inadequate wage offers that have been offered in our category, institutional care.

“We find the offer even more ridiculous when we are told that the government is considering an increase of 2.07 per cent in the pension indexing.

“The annual cost-of-living increases are at a four per cent to five per cent level. The provincial government also is considering an increase in the sales tax.

“In conclusion, an offer of four per cent is inadequate to meet with the annual percentage increase of over eight per cent. A more substantial wage offer must be presented in order to close the gap between management and labour during these negotiations.”

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Runciman: I have a petition, signed by several hundred irate taxpayers in Ontario, which reads as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario;

‘We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

REPORTS BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Fleet from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following reports and moved their adoption:

The Special Report, 1988, from the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

The First Report, 1988, from the standing committee on regulations and private bills.

Mr. Fleet: These two reports go to the heart of political accountability that every member of this Legislature is responsible for. Our regulatory procedures have fallen behind the times and significant reform is needed.

The special report covers the regulations issued in the last four months of 1984. The other report covers the period 1986. These reports reflect the views of the committee, as constituted in 1985 and early 1987 respectively.

The Regulations Act is over 40 years old, and it has been 20 years since there was a significant amendment. A comprehensive review of the act was sought by this committee a decade ago. That call for reform is forcefully repeated in the special report, 1988.

1510

The first report, 1988, goes on to highlight extensive changes in the regulatory environment which have occurred in Ottawa and Quebec. It too calls for further study in Ontario. Both reports touch on public participation in the making of regulations, known by the arcane title of Notice and Comment.

The public has a right to ask if optimal public participation is actually taking place when regulations are made. Further, are we, as legislators, truly accountable for the laws we pass, including regulations? These two reports are beacons, warning all honourable members of the serious and long-standing need for regulatory reform.

The existing standing committee on regulations and private bills held hearings this past March, and I expect it will soon present a further report to the Legislature with specific recommendations for reform. I urge all members to give this topic their consideration and to support improvements in the system.

There is a reference in the special report, 1988, concerning the former counsel to the committee which deserves our special recognition. I will quote briefly from the report:

“Your committee wishes to acknowledge the important and dedicated role played by Lachlan R. MacTavish, QC, as counsel to your committee since its inception in April 1977 until his death in 1985. Mr. MacTavish’s record was probably unique in the history of the Legislature of Ontario, covering nearly half a century.

“His first appointment was as an assistant law clerk under the Speaker of the House in January 1936. He subsequently served as a law officer of the House in many different capacities, including that of senior legislative counsel from 1947 to 1970.

“Mr. Lachlan R. MacTavish served your committee with patience, understanding and, above all, with dedication and distinction. His unmatched experience has been invaluable. We will miss him greatly.”

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

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that the standing committee on social development be authorized to meet on Wednesday, May 25, 1988, and on the morning of Thursday, May 26, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

GASOLINE HANDLING AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 133, An Act to amend the Gasoline Handling Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I have a brief explanation.

These amendments will enable us to ensure that the many ageing underground storage tanks at private outlets do not leak automotive fuel into our soil and waterways. Tanks and piping would have to be protected from external corrosion or removed by 1991. Suppliers would be prohibited from filling tanks not meeting safety standards and registered with the fuel safety branch. Anyone contravening the act would face penalties of up to $10,000 in fines or a year in jail.

The program for upgrading retail outlets is well under way, and we have identified and removed most of these abandoned tanks. Through this legislation, we will be able to meet our objective of having both private and retail outlet tanks up to safety standards by 1991.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Ms. Hosek moved third reading of Bill 108, An Act to amend the Rental Housing Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will say ‘aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved second reading of Bill 130, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act and the Education Act.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This bill deals with three important issues in the regional municipality of Waterloo.

The first part of the legislation will implement the request of the council of the region of Waterloo to introduce a new system of sharing regional and school board costs and will bring all properties in the region to a uniform assessment

base. Currently, within the region, 70 per cent of the property tax bill is in respect to regional and school board requirements. These taxes are unfairly distributed among ratepayers who live in the same regional and school board jurisdiction.

The update of the assessment base will permit the implementation of cost-sharing arrangements that allow the regional municipality and each school board to establish one mill rate for residential purposes and one mill rate for commercial purposes. These will be applied uniformly throughout their areas of jurisdiction in the region.

Councillors, trustees and ratepayers alike will then be able to understand and compare property taxes between different properties. The legislation will also require the Ministry of Revenue to update the assessment base at least every four years, in order to reflect subsequent changes in market value.

This amendment, which is similar to that enacted for the regional municipality of Sudbury in 1986, and for the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk in 1987, represents a major step forward in our continuing effort to improve the property tax system in Ontario.

The second part of the legislation will implement another request of the regional council by expanding the region’s waste management powers. At present, the region is responsible for the disposal of solid waste. The legislation will also grant it the authority to assume, with the consent of area municipalities, responsibility for the collection of waste. This will put the region in a much better position to handle the difficult issue of waste management. The bill will also give explicit general authority to the region to operate 4R programs for the reduction, reuse, recycling and recovery of solid waste. The main purpose of these programs is to reduce the amount of waste that must be disposed of at landfill sites.

The final part of the bill will give the region authority to collect industrial development charges on certain lands in Cambridge and Kitchener. The region has requested this particular amendment in order to allow it to recover its share of the costs of servicing the land occupied by Toyota as well as the surrounding provincially owned lands. It will be able to impose the charges on only those privately owned lands that are located within the area defined in the schedule to the bill. These private lands have benefited substantially from the services which were installed for the new Toyota plant and for the future industrial development plan for this area.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I just want to say very briefly, on behalf of the members from the Waterloo region, that we are delighted that this bill is proceeding through the Legislature today. It is basically a housekeeping bill, carrying out the terms of the agreement with regard to Toyota, permitting the region to move ahead with its assessment rate changes and also permitting it to move ahead with regard to waste management recycling and reduction. Our region has taken certain leadership roles in that area and we wish to continue to do so.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I think the issues are very well addressed. They are housekeeping issues, I think they are very important to this particular region and I would appreciate the support of all members of the House in putting those through.

1520

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Would any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Swart: Yes, I would like to participate very briefly in this debate. As I understand the bill, our party will be supporting it and will not be asking for any amendments.

I want to make one or two comments, though. I want to assure the House that our support of this bill is in no way endorsing market value assessment in general.

Second, I understand -- and I would ask the minister to comment on this when he replies -- that in fact there is no extension of market value in that region because of the passage of this bill. They have that system in place, as I understand it, at the present time, and all that it will mean, as I understand it -- and I want this confirmed -- is that they will not have to go through the rather useless procedure of equalization in that area and they can bring everything up to the date of this year; they do not have to equalize it on the basis of the previous year’s assessment.

I did have some concerns that the wording of the bill might mean that some of the farm areas of that region might be involved in having to pay mill rates in which some of the money was going to urban services, like water and sewers. But, again, I understand that the Waterloo region, in fact, does not levy urban areas; rather, all of the costs of the sewer and water operation are levied on users’ fees; and again, I would like to have the minister confirm that.

As he will know, there are certain municipalities and regions throughout the province which do have the urban areas and do assess on taxes a special levy for certain urban services. The rural area does not have to pay them and, of course, I would have some concern if this did extend to them, but I understand that it does not. I would like him to confirm those two things when he replies.

Of course, with regard to the extension of waste management, if they wish it there, it is a logical move; we certainly have no objection to that. And the special industrial development charges which they propose, we believe, are reasonable, again, when the regional municipality would like those.

So, subject to confirmation of those two assumptions, we will be supporting this bill with no amendments.

Mr. McCague: We, too, will be supporting this bill, although, like the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), we have some concerns about what the market value assessment angle really is that is included in this bill. I know the member for Welland-Thorold has been here as long as I have and I wish him well in getting answers to the questions he just posed, because this minister in particular is noted for not answering questions almost ever, as are his cabinet colleagues.

Mr. Reville: He is getting it over there now.

Mr. McCague: Oh, he is getting the answer. OK, that is fine.

Hon. Mr. Conway: George, this is not your normal style.

Mr. McCague: It is my normal style, or becoming my normal style, because of the normal actions of the House leader and his colleagues over there. However, I am not as learned in the profession of gobbledegook as the House leader is, but I do have the odd point to make the odd time.

The member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) says that the region is a leader in almost everything. I do not blame him a bit for believing that, but there are other areas of the province which are doing a good job in the waste management area.

I am pleased that the bill will take care of the production of Toyotas. In Alliston, we do try to rival them a little with the production of Hondas. However, in the interest of fairness, we are quite happy that there are car plants established in various parts of the province. I must say that for the most part Honda Canada has done wonderful things for the people in my area of the province.

I do have one of them. I do not know whether the member for Kitchener has a Toyota yet or not.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: My wife has.

Mr. McCague: His wife has. Oh yes, she is the one who likes Sunday shopping, isn’t she?

Mr. D. R. Cooke: We do not buy anything on Sunday.

Mr. McCague: She is opposed to it. Oh, I see.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. McCague: Pardon me, Madam Speaker.

However, I hope that the whole assessment issue is not a precursor of what the minister may wish to introduce at some later time. I know that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario is supporting this bill. I think it was in February of this year that the region passed a resolution requesting the implementation of uniform region-wide assessment for the taxation year of 1988. I think it is important that we as a Legislature go along with their wishes. I think it is similar to what was done in Sudbury, as the minister said, in 1986 and in Haldimand-Norfolk in 1987.

I guess we must support the fact that the member for Kitchener would like the matter of waste management squarely in the hands of the region, but by the same token I think maybe the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) might want to persuade his colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to become more active in this general area.

He is kind of shaking his head half yes and half no. When the problem really hits --

Mr. Reville: A common Liberal position.

Mr. McCague: Yes, that is right, squarely on the fence. When the issue really hits his part of the province, he may well decide that he is more interested in it.

We will support the bill with the caveat that we are just not sure what is hiding behind the assessment part of it.

Mr. Reville: I will not treat members to the kind of tour de force that I unveiled yesterday. I just wanted to intrude briefly on the conversation that was going on between the member for Kitchener and the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague) to indicate that I have been to the regional municipality of Waterloo. It is a fine place too. I did want to point out only that the officials of the regional municipality are sitting poised, waiting to send out the tax bills, I understand. While the minister and the member for Kitchener say this is a housekeeping bill, the officials in the regional municipality and the members of the regional council there wish that this government would do its housekeeping much more quickly in future.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I just want to thank the honourable members for their comment and participation in the debate. To the member for Welland-Thorold, I believe he is quite correct in the assumption which he made and I do not see any problem at all in that particular area with the services.

I want to express appreciation also to the people of the municipality of Waterloo for their background work in bringing this to our attention, and also for the work they have done in the past.

1530

Mr. Swart: Madam Speaker, perhaps you would permit me to just ask the minister a question. He did comment on the one question I raised. He did not comment on the --

The Acting Speaker: Order. There are no comments allowed to the wrapup speech made by the minister moving the bill.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker: To which committee will the bill then be referred?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The understanding was that we would do second reading of Bill 130. We have done that, and third reading will take place probably tomorrow.

Bill ordered for third reading.

LOI SUR LE FONDS PATRIMONIAL DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO / NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND ACT

L’hon. M. Fontaine propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 116, Loi concernant le Fonds patrimonial du Nord de l’Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine moved second reading of Bill 116, An Act respecting the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund.

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Cela me fait plaisir aujourd’hui de présenter, en deuxième lecture, la Loi concernant le Fonds patrimonial du Nord de l’Ontario.

Le Fonds est doté d’un budget, au total, de 360 millions de dollars. Il sera administré par un conseil formé de Nord-Ontariens provenant de différentes régions. C’est une promesse que nous avons faite aux personnes du Nord. Ensuite, c’est une recommandation de M. Bob Rosehart et de son comité, qui nous avaient dit d’essayer d’établir un fonds qui serait représentatif des personnes du Nord.

II viendrait s’ajouter aux activités actuellement entreprises par le gouvernement. Je sais que depuis deux semaines, depuis la première lecture de ce projet de loi, certains dans l’opposition ont même ridiculisé ce fonds-là, en disant que ce n’était pas suffisant.

Mais je dois rappeler aux députés du Nord, ainsi qu’aux autres députés, que ce fonds-là est distinct des autres fonds qui existent déjà. Souvent, on semble oublier que dans le Nord de l’Ontario actuellement, il y a des fonds, par exemple celui qui s’appelle la Northern Ontario Development Corp., qui s’occupe de développement industriel et du développement des petites entreprises.

Ensuite, on oublie le fonds qui s’appelle TRIP, le tourism redevelopment incentive program, qui s’occupe des projets touristiques. On oublie le fonds de quinze millions de dollars pour les cinq prochaines années qui s’appelle NOTICE, le northern Ontario tourist information centres enhancement.

On oublie le fonds qui aide les petites municipalités ayant une population de 4 000 à 30 000 habitants à se regrouper et à embaucher une personne pour s’occuper du développement économique. Ce fonds-là coûtera, pendant cinq ans, pour chaque municipalité qui en fera la demande, 500 000 $.

We forget the fund that we put in place lately for distant education and we forget the fund about our roads.

Today, the opposition was talking about a fund of $500 million, but I recall that when the people were serving on the Rosehart committee, they were talking about a fund that would include all the programs, which we did not do. This $30-million fund will be outside other programs. The only one we are going to roll back for the time being is the northern Ontario regional development program.

Mr. Laughren: Oh.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I do not care that my friends start to laugh. They should go to the north and do the same thing to see what people will say.

Mr. Laughren: Don’t worry. We are already. The north is laughing already.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I am not worried about Nordev because I make the same speech in the north. I do not do like the opposition, like the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) -- make one speech over here about something big and another speech over there. I make the same one all the time.

Mr. Laughren: That’s not fair, René.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: That is not fair, but listen for a while and then talk after.

In recognition of the need for the long-term commitment to the north, the government is pledging an initial commitment of $30 million. The reason we put --

Mr. Laughren: That’s not the truth, René. You’re not telling the truth.

Mr. Pouliot: You should go to church on that.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I think, Madam Speaker, that I have nothing to take from the member for Nickel Belt, because a couple of years ago he made a speech here and he did not repeat it in his own area.

Mr. Laughren: That’s not true.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I am going to tell you the date.

Mr. Laughren: I wouldn’t call you a liar, but that’s not true.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: About the same thing that we discussed.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would remind all honourable members that they be very careful with their language and their comments.

Mr. Laughren: That is why I did not call him a liar, but I could have.

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Dis-le donc, dis-le. Ça ne me fait rien, moi.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: You say things like that, you have to expect that sort of response.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: You started off, my friend, a long time ago.

Mr. Laughren: You should know better.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: You should know better too because I think I know as much as you. Maybe I did not go to school enough.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would remind all members to keep their comments on a less-than-personal basis. Are you ready to proceed? Thank you.

Mr. Laughren: You started it.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: You started it. You called me a liar first, so watch that word.

The fund will be managed in an account separate from the consolidated revenue fund. The government will also examine the feasibility of having a financial institution manage the fund moneys to maximize its earnings.

Again, I repeat to members, there will be a rollback for this year of Nordev. The reason for this is three years ago this program was put in place and the previous government had put $10 million and this money was spent. When we added another $20 million to the northern development fund, which was finished this year, and then to continue this program which is a very good program, I decided to use some money of the heritage fund this year for this.

At the same time, I asked for a sunset review which will be presented to the board. If the board at that time decides that this program shall continue, it will be up to it, because I think this program could be a good marriage with the heritage fund and to have something for small industry, to help them.

If they choose to do something else with it, that will be their problem.

The board will be established and composed of northerners, broadly representative of all facets of northern life, small and large business, industry and labour, manufacturers and tourist operators, women, francophones and natives. Some of the members of the board will come from the northern development council.

The board will be responsible for establishing specific criteria for the fund disbursement, but its broad mandate will include providing assistance to single-industry communities experiencing economic disruption from layoff or shutdowns, assisting with the development of new technology, especially the resource sector, helping small businesses to get started or expand their operation, and supporting special projects that promote the long-term growth and diversification of the northern Ontario economy.

The fund will complement and not duplicate the existing government activities except Nordev. The board will carefully review relevant existing programs at the provincial and federal government levels to identify those areas in which its own investment will be most useful.

Again I reiterate that we do not want to duplicate other programs.

1540

Many of the members will be aware that the ministry’s highly regarded northern Ontario regional development program, which was slated to expire two years ago, was able to continue due to the commitment of the northern Ontario development fund. Nordev will closely reflect one of the major aims of the northern Ontario heritage fund, to provide incentives to create jobs and start or expand small businesses in the north. A portion of this fund will be used to support continuing private sector initiatives under the Nordev program.

I want to reiterate that this will have a sunset review which is being done and I will bring that back to that board.

Une chose que je veux dire, c’est que le conseil d’administration sera chargé d’établir des critères précis régissant le déboursement des fonds. Son mandat est le suivant : venir en aide aux collectivités qui dépendent d’une seule industrie, qui connaissent des difficultés économiques causées par des mises à pied ou des fermetures d’usines; participer au développement de nouvelles technologies, particulièrement dans le secteur des ressources; venir en aide à la création ou à l’expansion de petites entreprises; appuyer des projets spéciaux qui favorisent le développement économique à long terme et la diversification de l’économie du Nord de l’Ontario.

En plus, ce fonds sera géré indépendamment du fonds provincial du revenu consolidé, et tous les intérêts et les fonds non utilisés à la fin de l’exercice financier seront conservés pour l’année suivante.

Ensuite, je dois dire que le comité sera formé de personnes du Nord choisies parmi les associations municipales qui existent, ou les mouvements ouvriers, fermiers, jeunesse et, en plus, les autochtones, puisqu’on doit se rendre compte que les autochtones dans le Nord, surtout au nord de la 50^e, nous sommes en train de les organiser dans un conseil économique, et puis avec ça, nous savons qu’ils auront besoin d’argent. Alors, je vais demander au comité de gestion de voir si on pourrait attribuer un certain montant peut-être aux autochtones pour les aider a se développer.

Mais je dois rappeler que tous les autochtones ne vivent pas seulement au nord de la 50^e. II y a des autochtones qui vivent dans le Nord de l’Ontario dans les îles Manitoulin; ensuite sur la route 17, comme sur la route 11. Alors, je vais demander à d’autres associations de nommer certains de leurs représentants pour qu’il y ait de la justice dans la représentation des autochtones au sein du comité. Je crois qu’il devrait y avoir au moins des représentants de l’assemblée de Nishnawbe-Aski. En plus, il devrait y avoir des représentants du Conseil numéro trois, et ensuite, d’autres qui représenteront le reste qui font partie des Chiefs of Ontario.

En plus, je dois rappeler aux honorables députés que le fonds sera mis dans un compte à part, et ce fonds sera géré au mieux, dans des institutions que le Trésor nous désignera, puisque nous sommes régis par certaines lois.

Je dois rappeler également que, si ça a pris du temps... je suis d’accord que ça a pris du temps, mais je dois rappeler aux personnes du Nord et aux députés qu’il y a eu une élection depuis ce temps-là, et puis lors d’une élection, le parlement ne siège pas.

Members who have experience know that you do not pass a law overnight, especially when you are going to make some loans. You have to have the whole thing in place. Since the announcement by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) a year ago, there has been an election, and when we came back there was the throne speech. Then we started over here and we found out that we needed a law because we were going to lend money or give grants. That takes more than one or two weeks.

When the law is passed -- I hope it will pass as fast as possible -- at that time the money will be transferred to a separate bank account and draw interest. I am going to repeat that this is for 12 years, to the year 2000. I think it is a victory for the people of northern Ontario to have a fund which is outside the consolidated revenue. Somebody told me it is the first time in this province that a fund like that has been implemented. Maybe it was done before, but in the last 20 or 30 years, apparently, this is the first one.

Ensuite, je voudrais rappeler aux personnes du Nord et aux députés que les autres programmes qui existent vont continuer. Il reste encore deux ans et quelques mois au Fonds du développement du Nord. Cela veut dire qu’on va dépenser encore 20 millions de plus, sans tenir compte de ceux-là. Il reste à peu près 40 millions à dépenser encore pendant les deux prochaines années dans le Fonds du développement du Nord, qui a été mis en place en 1985 ou 1986. Alors, ça va nous aider encore pour les prochaines années.

Ce que je suggère, c’est que le comité se rencontre au plus vite, puis encore là, je vais essayer de nommer le comité d’ici quelques semaines, choisir les membres et, après ça, les amener devant la Chambre pour les faire accepter -- je ne connais pas les règlements -- par la Chambre ou le Cabinet, puisqu’il faut que ce soit accepté.

M. Pouliot: Ça presse.

L’hon. M. Fontaine: Ça presse. Moi, je sais que ça presse, mais je dois rappeler au député de Lac Nipigon (M. Pouliot) qu’une loi, ça ne se s’adopte pas en une semaine. Je dois lui rappeler encore qu’il y a eu une élection après l’annonce de ça et que, durant l’élection, la Chambre n’a pas siégé. Elle a commencé à siéger tard cet automne, et puis on continue. Je sais que d’ici quelques semaines, quand ce sera adopté, je ferai mon possible pour satisfaire les désirs du député de Lac Nipigon pour que ce fonds-là soit en place.

Mais je peux lui rappeler aussi que durant l’année qui vient de s’écouler, il n’y a pas beaucoup de projets qui ont été refusés dans le Nord.

I want to remind my honourable friend that during this past year there were not too many projects that were refused, worthwhile projects that were refused, in any program we have, because to spend the money prudently --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Who decides whether they are worth while?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: There are people in northern Ontario who can decide on their own what is worth while. Most of the programs in the north are administered by northern people. The Northern Ontario Development Corp., the northern Ontario regional development program and the northern Ontario tourist information centres enhancement program, all are being run by people in the north in some way or other.

On top of that, there were other programs which, in consultation with the northern development councils, were recommended and are in place.

One thing we are looking at is to try to use this money outside other programs, because too many times -- I look at the Fednor program today that is going to be implemented by the feds. When I look at their criteria or their terms of reference, there are some which are going to touch our programs, so I have to go back to them and try to negotiate with Fednor to be sure that this program will maybe top off some of their program or supplement it, but I do not want them to be the same.

It is going to take time for the board to decide on the criteria. I do not want them to take nine months or 12 months, but still, they will have to decide, too, what they want to do with the money.

I know there will be a debate, but after this, I think everything will flow the right way. I know people will say it is not enough, but still, I want to remind members that it is $360 million over 12 years, and that is on top of all other programs that exist in northern Ontario, so I am pleased today to move second reading of this bill.

I would like to apologize to my honourable friend the member for Nickel Belt, because he is a good friend of mine and sometimes, dans le feu de l’action et du fait je parle trop vite... mais je m’excuse. I ask his forgiveness for this.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Sometimes? Regularly.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Not regularly. Sometimes, he likes to push me, too. Still, I think we are all working for the same cause, for northern Ontario, and I think at the end we will all be pleased with this fund.

Mr. Laughren: I wish to comment. I will temper my remarks somewhat, given the last minute or two of the minister’s speech.

I think he should know why I chuckled and laughed derisively, if you will, when he said the $30 million was on top of all other programs, except that one program, Nordev, would be cut back. At that point, I did have to laugh at the minister because, throughout northern Ontario, there is a mixture of anger, disappointment, and in some cases, downright laughter at the $30 million a year.

I remind the minister that it is a year ago now, almost to the week, that the $30 million was announced. A year later, they announce it again. Not that there is now $60 million in the plan, last year’s and this year’s. Oh, no. It is $30 million. Is it any wonder that northerners such as I are disappointed in the way this minister has not been able to deliver for northern Ontario, when he leads people to believe he can? Increasingly, people in northern Ontario are asking, “How much clout does René Fontaine have in northern Ontario?”

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I’m not shy at all.

Mr. Laughren: That is exactly what people in northern Ontario are saying.

1550

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: Nobody works harder for the north or does more for the people than René does.

Mr. Laughren: We are not talking about people working hard. We are talking about people being able to deliver the freight. That is what we are talking about. It is not a question of whether or not he works hard.

I ask the minister what he expects when he promises $30 million twice, which in my mind totals $60 million, and then delivers only $30 million.

Mr. South: New math.

Mr. Laughren: What kind of new math is that? That is right. The member says that is new math. It is not new math for people in northern Ontario. They are used to being promised something and then not having what was promised delivered.

Mr. Pope: I just want to comment to the member for Nickel Belt. I expected him to defend himself and his party against the comments made in Kirkland Lake last Friday that the reason this bill has not been introduced is the stalling tactics of the New Democratic Party. That was stated by the Minister of Northern Development as the excuse for not proceeding over the past two years. I was amazed that the New Democrats had that kind of influence on the administration of the Minister of Northern Development and the administration of the Liberal government.

The member for Nickel Belt is quite right. There has been hocus-pocus played with the northern Ontario regional development fund, and we are now seeing it come to fruition. I know the Minister of Northern Development and the Minister of Mines (Mr. Conway), who is sitting with him and who has been involved in this entire exercise, will both stand up and explain what is really happening to the Nordev fund, since there seems to be growing interest among members of the assembly and the people of northern Ontario over its fate.

I know the shell game has been an interesting one for the Minister of Mines, whom I hold responsible for this matter. I presume that he will stand up and defend himself and the honour of his government on this.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: What I said in Kirkland Lake was about the bells ringing. I said if they want us to pass one, we should pass that law, and then we should go on with the show.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First of all -- the ding-dong -- in answer to the member for Cochrane South, I would like to tell him that Nordev was put in place by his government. They put $10 million in it and that was the end. They never saw more than two years ahead in their lives in northern Ontario. If they had seen, they could have put in that Nordev program for 10 years, at least, as we are doing, and 12 years for the other one. They did not. It was a two-year program. We added another $20 million for three years. Now we are adding more for this year to finish the program.

I do not think that program will be scrapped. That is not true. It will be up to the board to decide if that program will continue and in which form it is going to do it. That is my answer to this. I never said that Nordev would be scrapped.

Mr. Pouliot: I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words regarding the long-awaited second reading of Bill 116, whose objects are to promote and stimulate growth in our special part of Ontario, namely, northern Ontario.

The members will be aware that for well over two decades, our party has been the advocate of a northern heritage fund whose allocation would help the people of the north to look to the future with confidence and allow them to plan so that they too, at long last, could join the economic mainstream of Ontario. Therefore, it is little surprise that our party respects and agrees with the intent and the spirit of Bill 116 and its rationale. However, we are deeply concerned about the sincerity of the government.

We recall only too well that it was on May 20, 1987, almost a year ago to the day, when in this House the same Treasurer, during the course of a budget statement allocated some $30 million towards the so-called northern Ontario heritage fund. That was one year ago. When I and other members of our caucus asked the Treasurer what had happened to that $30 million and whether he would he make the commitment that the $30 million would be added to the born-again heritage fund of 1988 so that the people of the north would indeed receive the $30 million that was owed to them in 1987 -- add to it the $60 million -- to give some “significance” to the fund, to get the show on the road, the Treasurer said no, he had no intention.

Then I went to see the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) and asked him, “Minister, what has happened to the $30 million that was announced by your colleague with great fanfare?” He said: “I put it in the 12th year. I put it at the end.” Now the minister says: “That’s OK. The future can last a long, long time.”

Little wonder. We are not dealing here with a mathematical genius emanating from Harvard. We are not asking for that. We do not ask him to solve complex problems of nuclear physics. We are not asking for that. We are not asking the minister to give us a lecture on Greek mythology. What we prefer is an honest, straightforward approach. That is what we are asking for. That has been the criterion that northerners have set for over two decades and that the members of our party have been advocating for the last two decades.

The last budget tabled by the Treasurer, 11 months later to the day, called for $30 million out of a budget of some $38 billion. By any standards, that is less than one tenth of one per cent. “Here’s $2. Take the eight kids out, have a great time and don’t come back until Monday.” This is what they think of the north. When the minister gets up and tries to defend this indefensible position, he talks about a wide range of subjects, he is all over the map, but he talks very little about the heritage fund.

Thirty million dollars out of a budget of $38 billion. This kind of announcement, although welcome in intent, generates very little money. The minister has as much clout as Mickey Mouse when it comes to delivering the goods. It is not enough money.

The point is well taken. The minister means well, but there is no money: it fuels suspicion. In fact, I heard it said last weekend in the great riding of Lake Nipigon, “Gilles, that lack of sincerity represents government at its worse.” I said: “I can’t believe that. Give the people a chance.” Well, they said: "Gilles, patience is a virtue. We believe. We’ve been waiting for over three years and they have failed to deliver. I’m starting to wonder. Do they mean what they say?” I said: “Give it a little more time. Give it a little more time and the minister will come up with another fine declaration.”

1600

“Heritage Money Will Flow by Year-end, René Says.” That was last weekend. Very timely. Then he has the audacity and the gall to go on to note that, and I quote, “the current delay is because of the stalling tactics of the opposition.” This time the bell got stuck; the bell rang. This kind of ding-dong approach is truly representative of the lack of seriousness in what this government, represented by this minister, is doing for the north. Thirty million dollars will buy 15 miles of new road in northern Ontario. The riding I have the honour of representing has 114,000 square miles. At this rate, we will never get there. Nevertheless, in my usual positive fashion, I go back to the intent, to the spirit, to the rationale: Indeed it is a step in the right direction; if only the money accompanied the bill, things would be OK.

Let me highlight some of the shortcomings. If the funds were of some significance, we could direct them at health services. The Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) for over a week has talked, with all the sincerity at her command and at great length, about high tech in the health system, about a world-class system second to none, a system that is very functional.

In northwestern Ontario, we have a lack of medical specialists and a shortage of specialized health service workers. We need expansion for homemaker services, support for new hospitals, hospital renovations, health care clinics and health care centres. We should have provision of health service workers in small and isolated communities, homes for seniors, small nursing homes and small apartment complexes. We need support for midwifery, for it to be legally recognized and funded, and support for health education projects so that we can better attract and retain health services that are so badly needed up north. The list goes on and on.

When dealing with specifics, is the minister talking about establishing a medical faculty at Lakehead University that could oversee the formation of programs so that we would have, in quotes, a referral system extraordinaire, up north where we have a specialist whenever we can get one and are able to see one? We are referred to a specialist and a specialist refers us to another waiting list down in southern Ontario. We have had enough.

Since 1982, they have hit upon good times -- enjoy, enjoy; time to share and share alike, comrade. They are at the peak of an unprecedented economic recovery in the year of our Lord 1988. The times are good times, and what are they doing? It is now that you plan. You do not plan when the going gets rough, when you have to do some patchwork and some Band-Aid solutions. You plan when times are good.

We have had so many studies and they all point in the same direction. We had the Fahlgren report; the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Kozyra) knows that. We have had recommendations from the Rosehart report, pointing in the right direction. It talks about forestry, which employs 80 per cent of the people in northern Ontario. It talks about the dilemma which is faced because of previous governments. I do not want the present government to carry the guilt -- it would not be fair -- but where today we are beginning to see more and more the result of mismanagement, a resource that was taken for granted no longer guarantees that tomorrow will bring prosperity to northern Ontario. Something needs to be done.

Will $30 million begin to address what is 80 per cent of our economy in the north? A pittance, a few drops, when we need, not an ocean but at least a small lake. It does not even begin to render justice to the north.

I could talk about roads. If we are to expand our economic base, the road system, more so than perhaps any part of Ontario, is so important to the people of the north. Again, $30 million will barely build 15 miles of new road in 1988 dollars. Now the minister again has the audacity to say, “But it will be $30 million each year.” It is hardly worth anything now. What will $30 million be worth in the year 2000?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Nothing I know is more audacious than this speech.

Mr. Pouliot: My God. The member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) has a long history of being silver-spoon-fed. He still knows very little about mining, but by virtue and reason of how the system works around here, he could keep the chauffeur and the limo, so the government gives him the Ministry of Mines; not an easy task with a multitude of people to try to keep happy, and to keep track of the Minister of Northern Development can indeed be a full-time job. I can well see that.

Madame la Présidente, si vous me permettez d’ajouter quelques mots en français, je me souviens très bien des premiers jours, des premières années, quand je me dirigeai vers Manitouwadge comme la plupart des gens qui l’ont fait depuis ce temps-là, comme ceux qui l’avaient fait auparavant. J’y étais venu en passage de deux, peut-être de trois ans. J’y ai vu les gens, qui sont maintenant de chez nous, exporter les ressources naturelles de notre pays du Nord de l’Ontario: les ressources minières, aussi les ressources forestières. Ensuite, j’ai aussi vu les gens exporter -- oui, exporter -- les fils et les filles de chez nous pour qu’ils parfassent leur éducation ou qu’ils aillent à la recherche d’un travail plus approprié et plus lucratif ailleurs.

J’y ai vu, comme grande finale, maintes gens qui, après avoir oeuvré dans le Nord de l’Ontario, après y avoir passé des périodes de cinq, dix, quinze ou même 25 ans -- les ressources naturelles s’étant envolées, nos fils et nos filles n’y étant plus -- s’exportaient eux-mêmes. Nous avons eu chez nous, pendant des décennies, un manque de racines, et la raison en est que la planification économique n’a jamais eu lieu.

Better than anyone before, this minister had an opportunity to give us the tools to plan for a better future. I believe the minister. I really think the minister is sincere, but I cannot help but be suspicious when there is so little money to do a job that should have been done some years ago.

J’aurai l’occasion. sans doute, de m’exprimer encore, dans un proche avenir, sur le projet de loi 116. Je vous remercie, Madame la Présidente.

1610

Mr. Brown: I appreciate the concerns that the member for Lake Nipigon has expressed on the behalf of northerners.

I would like to point out, however, that yesterday the Minister of Mines and I drove in my vehicle to Elliot Lake, where we toured Rio Algom and Denison Mines, met with both mine managers and union people and attended the meeting of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. I got the impression from the people in my constituency that they most appreciated the Minister of Mines’ knowledge in that area.

Mr. Wiseman: Did you brief him well?

Mr. Brown: He helped brief me.

I would also like to point out that from my constituency’s point of view, we believe the heritage fund is a very good thing for us. We have two large single-industry towns in my riding: Espanola and Elliot Lake. They are very interested in the $360 million that this government is committing to the north. They believe that diversification of the economy is important. They believe that we cannot have all our eggs in one basket.

They understand full well that this government has committed over 50 per cent more to roads and numerous other programs so that northerners are taking a full part in Ontario. They also know that this is a topping-up fund. This is more extra money. This is extra money for all of northern Ontario. They believe that it really will help. I would appreciate the member’s comments on that.

Mr. Wildman: I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon on his cogent remarks.

I am a little concerned, though, about the remarks of my friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Brown) with regard to my colleague’s speech, particularly when he called this new, so-called northern Ontario heritage fund a “topping-up fund.” We are indeed concerned that if the government sees this as another way for, for instance, the Ministry of the Environment to avoid having to give adequate assistance to small municipalities in the north for water and sewer projects, the Ministry of the Environment will then just simply go to the Ministry of Northern Development and say, “All right, let us use the northern Ontario heritage fund as a way to top up the grant for the water and sewer projects so that the municipality’s share is somewhat less.”

Frankly, if that is what is proposed by this government, then it is completely inadequate, because what should be done of course is for the Ministry of the Environment, in the example I have proposed, to give adequate grants in the first place so that the municipality does not have to have such an enormous share that it has to then go to another ministry and ask for a topping up. If this is a topping-up program, then it is completely inadequate. But frankly, I think it must be that, because with only $30 million a year in the program it is very small.

When you consider that this amount of money is to be used across northern Ontario for development, it is so small that it could not be for much more than a topping-up program, because if you are going to have any major projects and any major investments, it would not take very long to deplete a $30-million fund. So it cannot be for major development and diversification. It must be for something else. As my friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has indicated, it is indeed apparently for topping up.

Mr. Pouliot: At the risk of sounding repetitious, in time the minister will share it with me perhaps, it is hard to penetrate. We have no objection to the spirit and the intent. What we are saying is that the Treasurer promised us S30 million in 1987. We did not get it.

If it had been said outside these premises, it would have been regarded as quasi-fraud.

Mr. Laughren: Breach of promise.

Mr. Pouliot: Yes. Some people would have said that it borders on an act of thievery. Someone said he is going to pay you, it is in the mail. My friends remind me on a daily basis of other one-liners but I do not want to be repetitious.

Suffice it that, if you add to the $30 million that we did not get some $34 million that was generated from the revenues from the softwood duties, that is $64.4 million. That money was to be put aside to train and relocate people. So, when people say, “We was robbed,” they are right. That is $64 million. One really wants to believe but one is not given a chance to do so. We like the fund. We like the approach, but it is really very, very little money.

We appreciate that it will be a separate law. The minister tries to remind members of the official opposition that it is never enough. We are the first people here, with our colleagues in opposition, to say, when something is done well, “We congratulate the government.” We do not say, “But, however ... .” We are sincere people. What we are saying is that the people of the north deserve more money. It is as simple as that -- no more, but no less than that either.

Mr. Pope: I am pleased to participate in this debate as the critic for our party for Northern Development. At the outset I have to say that, since the time I was appointed, last October, as the critic for Northern Development, I have been allowing the minister time, within the cabinet context, to develop his strategy and get the approvals through for the administration of his programs, as he saw fit, without publicly questioning or criticizing him. He knows that is true. But now, as critic for my party, it is time to comment on the product of those efforts over the past six months and I intend to exercise my obligations in doing so.

I have to say that I am pleased that the Minister of Mines is here because I want to tell him that I do not think he has been as forceful in his support for the Minister of Northern Development as he would have been had he had the economic interests of northern Ontario at heart. We see that today in the disgraceful announcement of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) with respect to the Temagami wilderness area.

I say to the Minister of Mines and the same Minister of Northern Development, who, over the past three weeks in northern Ontario, has been saying that northerners alone should be settling this matter, and who now must surely admit today that northerners alone did not settle this matter, that, in fact, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) ignored his advice and ignored the virtually unanimous opinion of the people in economic groups in northern Ontario with respect to the resource utilization in the Temagami wilderness area. The Minister of Mines copped out. He copped out on the mining industry. He copped out on the miners of this province and he refused to support his Minister of Northern Development.

Because of that, the area of highest undeveloped mineral potential in this province will remain unexplored and undeveloped. The Minister of Mines would not stand up for the mining industry of this province and would not support the Minister of Northern Development because of that. The area with the highest undeveloped geological potential will not be developed for the benefits it will provide to North Bay, to the Timiskaming district and to all of northeastern Ontario. The Minister of Mines should be ashamed of himself for not standing in his place in cabinet and supporting the Minister of Northern Development.

I want to say that the Minister of Northern Development has been very frank that this has been his priority over the past month, that he was addressing the issue of resource utilization in the context of park development in this province. He is quoted in newspaper after newspaper as saying that this will be his priority, that he will speak for northerners and northerners will have their say and their way in the allocation of resources in northern Ontario.

It did not happen, and I repeat what I said earlier. The Minister of Northern Development has not had the support from his cabinet colleagues that he deserves when he speaks for all of us in northern Ontario, regardless of what party we support, regardless of what side of the House we are on. This Minister of Northern Development has not had support from his cabinet colleagues, who have refused to understand the economic necessities and the economic lifestyle of northern Ontario and who refuse to come to his aid.

1620

Now we have another project of the Minister of Northern Development. It is my obligation, as critic from my party, not to frustrate the efforts of the minister to get this bill through -- we do not intend to do that -- but to pass comment on what legitimately has been a long-standing debate in northern Ontario, a long-standing philosophical dispute, really not involving the Liberal Party at all, historically, but really between the members of the New Democratic Party, who first stood for a northern heritage fund in the election of 1975, to my knowledge, in northern Ontario, and the members of our party, who philosophically disagreed with the establishment of a northern heritage fund, for reasons that I will amplify in a few minutes.

The Liberals have just recently joined this debate, and it is interesting to examine the philosophy behind that decision. First of all, in the elections of 1975, 1977, 1981 and 1985, I philosophically disagreed with the establishment of a northern heritage fund. Why? Precisely for the reasons that the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, the Liberal member, gave just a few short minutes ago.

Is this fund going to be used by other ministries as a slush fund for funding northern Ontario instead of meeting their own obligations as line ministries to help and support the communities and people of the north? Is it going to be given over to the Minister of Northern Development so they can wash their hands of the needs of northern Ontario for proper municipal services, transportation services, social services, health care services? Are they all going to say, “René has it in his slush fund, the northern heritage fund; so forget it northern Ontario, go to him”? Is that their only answer? Is it going to be used, as the member for Algoma-Manitoulin said, as a topping-up fund to deny the obligations each line ministry has to the communities and the people of northern Ontario to meet their special needs?

I think the member for Algoma-Manitoulin let it slip. I think he has just enunciated the government policy on the use of this fund, and that is why he has removed himself from the chambers. I saw the Minister of Mines escort him out. I can understand that. No one was supposed to say anything about this during this debate, and somehow it slipped out. Even the Minister of Health cannot believe what the member for Algoma-Manitoulin just said. She is shaking her head with disbelief.

Let us talk about the strange machinations over the last three years with respect to funding in the Ministry of Northern Development. Let us talk about the allocations that everyone is so proud of. I have my own chart, but I will just read it out. It tells a very different story from what has been said in this Legislature, announced by the Minister of Northern Development and the acting Minister of Northern Development, and the reality of this government’s financial commitment to the Minister of Northern Development and to northern Ontario.

I first want to acknowledge clearly what the Minister of Northern Development has said before, that there has been an increase in the road budget in northern Ontario in the past three years, from $86 million in 1985-86, $86.6 million in 1984-85, to now $105.8 million this year in his own estimates.

Interjection.

Mr. Pope: The minister is disagreeing. He does not even know, therefore, that he has been cut back by the Treasurer already. Is this part of the constraint target? Is this what we are now being told? His own estimates: $105.8 million.

Let us look at the commitment to air services. In 1984-85, it was $6,642,000, and it is now $4.5 million. There has been a reduction of over $2 million by this government since 1984-85 in support of air services to serve the communities and people of northern Ontario.

Rail and ferry service: in 1985-86, it was $19,291,000; this year it has been reduced by approximately $1 million, to $18,330,000.

Economic development in the Ministry of Northern Development budget: in 1980-81, it was $56,483,000; in 1981-82, it was $67,678,000. It was comparable in 1982-83. What is it this year, according to the Ministry of Northern Development figures? I know it is hard to reassemble it based on the restructuring of the estimates book that started in 1985-86, but I can only tell members that in the economic development envelope, as it now is stated in the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development, it is $14 million, down from $67 million.

Let us look at ministry administration, however. Here we see dramatic increases. In 1985-86, it was $3,771,000, according to the ministry’s own estimates. That is on a par with the estimates over the previous four years of ministry administration. There was no dramatic increase or decrease. This year it is $14,390,000, a dramatic increase of almost 100 per cent in a year. This is at the same time that the support for the economic development envelope has declined dramatically; it is at the same time that economic support for air services for the people of northern Ontario has declined dramatically; and it is at the same time that there has been a slight decline in the support for rail and ferry services. As well, it is at the same time that there has been an increase in road construction costs funded by the Ministry of Northern Development, combined with a decrease in the northern Ontario resources transportation committee funding over the past three years.

Community services have virtually remained constant from 1983-84 to the present day. Community infrastructure, if you can extrapolate that out, has gone from $13,053,000 in 1982-83, down to $7.5 million in 1987-88, but we do have community relations officers to the tune of $4 million under this new minister.

I have to say that those are the actual numbers taken from the estimates book of the Ministry of Northern Development, and I think it leads me, as a northern Ontario member of this Legislature, to question what the real priorities are for this minister, and more important for this Ministry of Northern Development with respect to the Treasurer and the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston) and how they are treating the Minister of Northern Development.

However, I want to deal with the legislation and pass some comments. First of all, very briefly, I have no objection to any kind of designated fund with respect to new job opportunities and new economic development opportunities in northern Ontario. We had such a fund, that we ourselves used, called the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development in 1981; and under the BILD program we developed forest management agreements, we helped modernize the pulp and paper industry, we development the aeromagnetic survey program, we developed the industrial mineral program that Algoma-Manitoulin benefited from.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: You topped up existing programs.

Mr. Pope: No, we did not top up existing programs. The member who thinks he knows everything about economic development knows nothing, but he is a Liberal.

1630

We had modernization of the sawmills as part of our speech from the throne in 1985, an economic development program.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: It didn’t come in.

Mr. Pope: Because the minister would not put it in. That is why they do not have it, because the Liberals would not implement the modernization of the sawmill program when they came to power in 1985. They would not proceed with it. It was not important enough. The bush workers and the mill workers in northern Ontario were not important enough for the new Liberal government to modernize these mills. What a disgrace.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: They had 40 years to modernize.

Mr. Pope: We provided over $100 million in the modernization of pulp and paper mills, and the Liberal Party opposed it. The Liberal Party opposed it at the time.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: There was a 40-year deficit.

Mr. Pope: The same member, the member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon), who does not know anything about it, tries to offer an opinion on that issue as well.

We have no objection to designated funds for economic development and employment creation in northern Ontario. We ourselves, in 1982-83, when over 7,000 resource workers were laid off in this province, had a section 38 funding program with the federal and provincial governments participating, and those 7,000 laid-off resource workers were put back to work and they are now engaged in full-time occupation in northern Ontario.

What has the Premier (Mr. Peterson) done for the laid-off resource workers? He came to Sudbury on January 3, 1987, and announced: ‘Hey, guys, I know you’re out of work here. We’ll take the $30 million from the softwood lumber tax and we’ll have a training and employment development program for laid-off resource workers.” Big applause in Sudbury.

Three months later, what did he say here in Toronto? He said: “Forget that one. We’ll put it into a heritage fund.” That was over a year ago. Do members remember that? Over a year ago the honourable member who is looking at me now was not even here then. The government is just implementing something that is a year old.

We do not object to any kind of envelope, statutory or otherwise, which the Minister of Northern Development wants to bring in if it is going to stimulate economic development and job creation in northern Ontario.

Why do we need this legislation, which the minister claims he needs to set up this fund? I do not know. I have yet to have an explanation as to why he thinks he needs a statute to dispense money in this province when he has the act establishing the Ministry of Northern Development which gives him that power and he already dispenses grants through the Ministry of Northern Development.

Explain to me, table the legal opinions, get the staff out here and tell me exactly why he needs a specific law to dispense money in northern Ontario when he did not need it for the last three years for all the economic development programs he has been involved with. Why does he need this law in order to do this? Explain to me why.

Explain to me, if he needs this law to give the existence and the raison d’etre of this fund, why he has not put in this legislation the principles and the criteria for the dispensing of that money. Why has that not been placed in here?

The minister says the northern development council, the administrative board, will decide that. The northern development councils have been waiting for a year for the minister to give clear guidelines, and his staff and his administration have refused to do it.

The northern development councils have asked to have the criteria, the ground rules, laid out for them so they can make the decisions, and they have been frustrated every single step of the way by a bureaucracy that refuses to answer their questions, refuses to give them guidelines and refuses to help them. That is the reason there is total frustration among the northern development councils across the north right now.

Interjection.

Mr. Pope: Oh yes it is; because there have been no guidelines and no guidance given by those who are responsible to the north.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member will address his remarks to the chair, and the Minister of Northern Development will make comments afterwards, not during.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: If the member would take a breath once in a while.

Mr. Pope: Which one?

Mrs. Marland: I can’t understand what he’s saying anyway.

Mr. Pope: Who are you talking about?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Pope: Yes. Relax, Mr. Speaker.

There is a discussion in section 5 of the objects of the corporation. Boy, that must have taken all of five minutes. Where are the criteria, the objectives of this fund? Is it going to be a topping-up fund, is it going to give additional grants on top of existing ministry programs, is it going to fill in some sort of gaps?

I heard the Minister of Northern Development say that it is going to be dealing with single-industry towns when they have layoffs. This government has an obligation to those communities anyway. That has nothing to do with a heritage fund for economic development. The government of Ontario has an obligation to every community in this province and to every worker in this province, regardless of where he or she lives.

Is the government saying that because they are from northern Ontario it is the problem of the Minister of Northern Development and no one else in the government is going to lift a finger to help laid-off workers or single-industry communities, but if it is southern Ontario everyone will get into it? Is that the government’s attitude? Is that the signal it is going to send out to northern Ontario communities and northern Ontario workers?

That is why I think it is appropriate and necessary to clearly set out the criteria and the objects of this northern Ontario heritage fund. We have a right to know exactly where this money is going. If the objectives are economic development, new industrial development, new job creation or training, fine; then there will be some certainty. The northern development councils will have an idea about what recommendations and what signals to put out to the communities in northern Ontario.

If that is the case, fine. Tell us how the Ministry of Skills Development will dovetail into that program, tell us how the Treasurer will allocate money to that program, tell us how the other ministries will also aid our Minister of Northern Development in these same objectives. Lay it all out so we clearly understand that it is not just a slush fund, it is not just a reason for other ministries to deny their obligations to the north because it is the north. Tell us precisely what is going on.

I would ask the minister, at the appropriate time -- and perhaps it will be in committee -- to explain to me exactly what he is talking about with respect to the northern Ontario regional development program. Exactly what are we talking about? That fund is set at $28 million this year.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: No.

Mr. Pope: It is not? OK, that is very interesting to know. What then is the budgetary commitment to Nordev this year? In the estimate books of the Ministry of Northern Development, including Mines, what is the allocation? Members remember Nordev. The minister says it was due to expire in 1985. Not so. The minister says that.

I can recall an announcement by the Premier of a $100-million Nordev fund; $20 million over five years. All of a sudden, the Minister of Northern Development has rewritten history. It is now only three years and it is only $10 million a year. What happened to poor old Nordev? Twenty million dollars a year for five years becomes $10 million a year for two years.

There has been too much of this with respect to the Ministry of Northern Development budget, too much change of names and game playing, too much of winding up and winding down of funding programs, not enough certainty for the people of northern Ontario, those who wish to take advantage of these programs. Poor old Nordev. Now, obviously, the signals are clear. That budget commitment is going to be wound down, it is going to disappear and the money will disappear with it.

It reminds me of the first allocation to Nordev that this new government made in the 1985-86 estimates. Do members know what they did? They allocated $10 million to Nordev. Guess what they did with the economic development package and the social development package in that same estimate book? They reduced them by $10 million. And this was supposed to be new money? Give me a break. Those guys just tinkered with a few labels and that was the end of it. There was no additional allocation whatsoever.

I think we are entitled to know where this ministry and this government are going with respect to the funding of economic development programs for the Ministry of Northern Development.

1640

It is fine to talk about a $360-million program over 12 years. We are talking about $30 million a year. Or are we? What other changes are there going to be?

We are going to lose the Nordev program and those millions of dollars; it is going to be wrapped up. Are we going to increase the northern heritage fund allocation by the amount of the estimates for the Nordev program? Is it going to be more than $30 million? Is the minister going to stand up right now and announce that?

While we are talking about the initial startup budget for the northern heritage fund, it seems to me that basic mathematics indicates there is $30 million from last year, there is interest on that money from last year -- let us say 10 per cent; that is another $3 million -- and it is $30 million for this year. That is what the Premier said; it must be true. I mean, the Premier said that; it must be true.

So where is the $63 million? Where is the $63 million that northern Ontario industries have already paid out in the softwood lumber tax? Where is that $63 million in the northern Ontario heritage fund?

All of a sudden -- it must have been tremendous deflation or something -- it is now $30 million. Where is our $33 million that the Premier promised? I do not know, it must be there; the Premier said it was there, it has to be there. I mean, he would never -- no, he would not do that; it has to be there. Give us our $63 million in the northern Ontario heritage fund program.

Is it going to be deposited in the bank? In what bank is it going to be deposited? What branch in northern Ontario? OK? In what branch in northern Ontario is our $63 million going to be deposited? I have not heard any specific announcement. The Premier said it; it must be so. It must be so; the Premier said it. What branch of what bank in northern Ontario is our $63 million in today, and who has the right to sign cheques on that account?

I think if we are talking about a separate, independent fund controlled by someone in this administration, I think the very basic details, the banking arrangements -- surely you can tell us what the banking arrangements are. Is it located in the Sudbury branch of the Royal Bank, the Thunder Bay branch of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce or perhaps the Timmins branch of the Bank of Nova Scotia? It must be in one of those branches somewhere in some bank in northern Ontario; and I will bet René Fontaine has signing privileges on $63 million in that fund. I will bet.

It has got to be so; the Premier said it was. The Premier said it was going to happen.

Mr. Laughren: Do you think the Premier always means what he says?

Mr. Pope: I do not know if the Premier always means what he says. I used to take him at his word.

Since Nordev has been folded in on top of that, that is another $25 million or $28 million, so it is 63 plus 28 -- we are now up to $91 million, and I presume that is on deposit somewhere and the minister just has not told us yet. The $91 million is there; I am sure of it.

The fact of the matter is this government has delayed, without justification, implementation of this program.

First of all, they stole it from the New Democrats, an idea that was 13 years old. Clearly something that the New Democratic Party has put before the people of this province in elections, honestly standing up and saying what it would do, what its vision was for the development of northern Ontario. I continue to disagree with the philosophy behind it, but at least it was there. It was part of their traditional platform vis-à-vis northern Ontario.

But here we have a Premier who promised, a year ago, $30 million. He has not delivered on it. Now we have a repetition of the $30 million and, for some strange reason, we need legislation.

I compare that with Fednor, the Northern Ontario Development Advisory Board, a program that was announced just a few short months ago, which has already settled the criteria for the allocation of funding and which is already receiving applications for approval and for distribution of funds. If members compare that administrative effort with the sham that has gone on with the Liberal government of Ontario, there is no comparison whatsoever.

I say to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, who thinks it is a topping-up fund, let us make it more than that. If the Minister of Northern Development is being sandbagged by the cabinet, he should stand up for him. He should stand up and help him and make sure that the northern Ontario heritage fund creates new jobs, creates new abilities for northerners to get jobs in a new technological age and creates new economic opportunities for diversification of northern Ontario economies.

Part of the legacy of this Legislature is written by northerners who are not part of my party. It would do the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, the member for Port Arthur and the Minister of Northern Development well to read the parting speeches of Elie Martel and the former member for Port Arthur, Jim Foulds, when they talked in very emotional terms about what kind of future they saw for their children in northern Ontario and where they saw the economic opportunities for their families in the future, given the status quo of the north.

In our party, we have had the BILD program, the modernization of the pulp and paper mills and a rapid expansion of mineral exploration through the aeromagnetic survey program. Yes, we have had our ideas. We have tried them out. The Liberals have the right, as an elected government, to develop their ideas and that is part of what the Minister of Northern Development is doing now.

But they should make it more than a topping-up program. They should make it more than a stopgap fund for other ministries to deny their obligations and responsibilities to the north. They should make it something that is of permanent benefit to the young people of northern Ontario. Then they will have done their work well. But they should not come in with a very generalized bill, with no guidelines, no criteria and no specific hope for our communities and our people in northern Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr. Brown: I will give it a whirl.

I was much interested in the comments of the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). I want to make clear to him that the government does not see this as a topping-up fund in terms of adding to the present programs but as additional money for northern people.

The second thing I would like to talk about is that he mentioned in his address the increase in the administrative cost of northern development. Most of that money, as the member would well know, is going to move the ministry to Sudbury to provide jobs for northerners to administer it locally. We think that is a good thing. Perhaps the member for Cochrane South does not believe that we should have our own administrative support staff in Sudbury, that we should have all the support staff in the Ministry of Northern Development working in the north.

Those are just a couple of points I would like to make. I wonder what the member has to say.

There is one more. Maybe I should point out that the government also is moving, altogether, 1,600 jobs north and spending $200 million on new buildings in the north. It will have a payroll of $48 million. Maybe the member could inform the House how many jobs his government moved north.

Mr. Laughren: Since the discussion has veered towards the transfer of jobs to the north, I think the member for Algoma-Manitoulin should understand very clearly that this party -- and I am sure the third party, as well -- supports the move of civil servants to northern Ontario.

But I trust that he will never try to sell to the people of Ontario, and particularly the people of northern Ontario, that moving civil servants from Toronto to Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie or North Bay is a substitute for economic development. That is what he is implying, I think, in his remarks, and that is certainly not the kind of economic development that northern Ontarians expect from this government.

1650

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I found the debate about northern development very interesting. It is something that everyone likes to talk about; indeed, all three parties have talked about it. But this is the first government that has committed itself to a statute which will specifically enshrine the right and entitlement of northern Ontario to a commitment of a government to northern development.

I would also like to point out that the third party has indeed talked about economic development in the north for years. What they used to do, let us not forget, is sit around for four or five years and do nothing. Then Dr. Stewart and the Premier of the day would get together and develop a BILD program -- a BILD program based on initiatives and programs they should have done in the last four years. They would call it an election program, have an election and then completely forget the BILD program because it was nothing more than an election platform. It was not a statute. It was not a commitment to a heritage fund, as this legislation is built on.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there other comments? Rotation. The member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan).

Mrs. Marland: Rotation, Mr. Speaker? Excuse me, did you say “rotation”?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mrs. Marland: The last speaker was a member of the government.

The Deputy Speaker: That is right, and the New Democratic Party --

Mrs. Marland: And now you are going to another government member.

The Deputy Speaker: We will go with the member for Lake Nipigon then, if he wants to speak.

Mr. Pouliot: Many of my colleagues are getting “really sick and tired” of having the present government blame the ancien régime. It is only too easy. After all, it has been more than three years since the election of May 2, 1985.

The government cannot spend 90 per cent of its time blaming the people before it.

The present government, it is a well-known fact, believes that the marketplace always chooses better. It is symbolic. It is mythical with them that if they let the marketplace be, things will take care of themselves. The Premier said so. As my friend the member for Cochrane South has said, the Premier would not, the Premier would not.

So he goes to Sault Ste. Marie. Then he goes to Thunder Bay and establishes role models. Those people are entrepreneurs. What is needed is a massive injection to supplement the entrepreneurial spirit of the north. We cannot do it by ourselves. If we acquiesce, if we agree that we need more help up north in a sort of blended economy, then we have to agree on the same hand that $30 million does not suffice.

That is what we are saying. We are saying that we do not want to see studies. The time for more studies has gone. We have been studied to death. The previous administration, yes, spent upwards of $50,000 to establish that Rossport was located on water. We want some direction. We want some action. No excuses. The time for excuses has gone.

Mrs. Marland: It is singularly significant, I think, that this afternoon the members who are now commenting on the very relevant and very accurate comments of my colleague the member for Cochrane South on this bill this afternoon are newly elected members. For that I would forgive them their lack of knowledge of the history of the Progressive Conservative government in this province and what it has done for the north.

The truth of the matter is that the Progressive Conservative government did not need to enshrine something in legislation because when it said something it was not an election promise that had to be enshrined. There were in fact many, many programs that our government introduced and our government fulfilled.

I think, with respect, the people who are commenting today might well listen with respect to someone who has sat in this House for 11 years, who has been a minister of the former cabinet of the Conservative government and who is committed and passionately dedicated to the north. I think the members would fare well to listen very seriously to his arguments, comments and presentation this afternoon. Perhaps, if the member were to do that, someone who represents a riding as urban and as south as York Mills might also benefit from that knowledge if he were to listen.

The Deputy Speaker: For 20 seconds, the member for Brampton South.

Mr. Callahan: In 20 seconds it would be very difficult to explain what did not happen in 42 years. The north is certainly a very special commodity for all of us in this House and I think it augurs well that we should work together to try to solve that problem. It bothers me somewhat to hear the criticism for the first step by a government that, as my friend the member for York Mills said, has been enshrined in legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member’s time is up.

Mr. Callahan: Northerners for once have something carved in stone as opposed to carved --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pope: The Baron from Brampton would not know anything about it anyway. He would not take the time to inform himself so I am not really worried about what he has to say.

The member for Algoma-Manitoulin. in his response today, and I think a week ago, tried to address the issue that I raised in my budget speech with respect to the increase in ministry administrative costs of the Minister of Northern Development.

Somehow, Liberal arithmetic is this: if you transfer jobs from one place to another, those are all new dollars. They are existing jobs being moved from one part of the province to the other, but somehow that justifies a doubling of the ministry administrative budget from $7 million to $14 million with not one new job created. A shift of jobs from one region to the other justifies an increase of $7 million in one year in the administrative expenses of this ministry.

Yet the member for Algoma-Manitoulin really had the nerve on two occasions to stand up and try to justify that. Amazing. It is the same kind of economic theory that our Treasurer engaged in the development of his budget. It is astounding. No wonder the economy of this province and the budgetary expenditures of this government are out of control. It is absolutely amazing.

The member probably supported the Treasurer in his budget too, did he not? Sure. I mean, what is wrong with a 48 per cent increase in administrative costs here in Queen’s Park over three years? That is great stuff. It is the poor people of the province who have to pay for it and do not get the services. We are not talking about an increase in services.

If the member for York Mills would spend more time examining what has gone on in the past and some of the successes, if he would care to admit for once that there might have been the occasional success --

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up. Order.

Mr. Pope: -- he might have a different message.

Mr. Kozyra: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in favour of Bill 116, especially since, quite coincidentally, there is a group of students from Thunder Bay in the audience today; from Prospect Avenue School, I understand. I was unable to get my picture taken with them for having to sit here, listen and participate.

The members have all heard of the Rosehart report. In that report there were 82 recommendations made in relation to northern Ontario and development there. To date -- and it is a relatively short time in terms of the way the political process works -- the government has implemented a majority of those recommendations. This one before us today is one of the most important and will have perhaps one of the greatest effects on people in the north; including the future generation, such as those students we have in the gallery.

I am not sure where the member for Cochrane South, who has now left, is getting his information on the northern development councils, how frustrated they are and so on. I have had the pleasure, in assisting the Minister of Northern Development, of having a very close working relationship with northern development councils over the past seven months. I know for a fact that, for a three-month period, the northern Ontario heritage fund and the terms of reference were the top priorities on the councils’ agendas.

Each council is represented by 15 members from the region, representing a cross-section of that region. Every one of those councils debated and discussed this very closely and in great detail and came up with an extensive list of terms of reference. I helped to co-ordinate those terms of reference and pass them on to the minister and his people for inclusion.

1700

I can give members some of the highlights. First, nowhere in those terms of reference and recommendations do they talk of “topping off.” That was never discussed. That was never an issue. That was never the intent.

In the terms of reference, all nine councils agreed on several key points. Uppermost in their minds was equalization of opportunity. It was extremely important. The Premier has spoken to this effect. He said that the north, in certain ways and under certain conditions, is still considered disadvantaged. It is the government’s commitment in a general way, and this is one of those aspects where equalization of opportunity will proceed.

Job creation was the next on their list. Third was diversification of the economic base, and the fourth general term of reference was a priority to single-industry towns and high-unemployment areas. They then proceeded to break those down into more detail, into other areas for their recommendations to be incorporated into this mandate.

Receiving very high support from all nine councils were the following: business development, especially small business development. The small business orientation would focus on young entrepreneurs; new and unique ventures; service industries. It would take the form of awards and incentives, and a corporate tax holiday was also considered as one of the aspects.

Research and development was also a priority. They talked of pure and applied research in resources, forestry and mining. They talked of northern development consultants; northern development, from the north, not from the south. They talked of crisis, rainy-day-funding situations, where single-industry towns would once again be a priority.

Another item high on their list was one-stop shopping, a clearinghouse for all the government programs, a communications database, a simplification of the multitude of programs which now exist and tend to confuse those who would wish to be helped. They talked of marketing of the north, a promotion and strategy and business centre that would help the northern communities to tap into the larger market of the south and make the south aware, to a greater extent, of what is there.

They talked of expansion of existing business and industries as well. Receiving lesser support but still mentioned for consideration in their terms of reference were things like infrastructure, tourism enhancement, transportation and skills development.

These are the kinds of things that the northern development councils concentrated on and put forth as their recommendations. They are not contained specifically in the bill in that way. They will go forth as a mandate, as a direction, to this management board.

In speaking of the mandate, notice how closely what is stated, what is intended, approximates to what the northern development councils had recommended. The mandate, as indicated, says single-industry communities, technology development, small business development, special projects which promote the general mandate of the northern Ontario heritage fund: a close parallel to the kinds of recommendations.

It is difficult to see where the criticism comes that the northern development councils are not functioning, are not having their input and are frustrated. They have had tremendous positive input and are very gratified to see the kind of direction this heritage fund is taking. It is a reaction to northerners speaking out for the north. It is a direct incorporation of their recommendations.

In response to the question of what kind of projects the fund will support, eventually it will be up to the board to determine that. However, the general aim is to promote the long-term economic growth and diversification of northern Ontario, and support community initiative and self-reliance.

What is different in this fund from other funds -- and I think it is worth enunciating this very clearly, because the opposition tends to take great relish in knocking this, saying it is insignificant in amount, a “topping off” -- the differences here are what make this --

Mr. Wildman: Your member said “topping off,” not us. That is unfair.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kozyra: If I may clarify what the member meant by his “topping off,” it was on top of existing and ongoing programs. If the member reads the text closely, he will see that.

What is different about this fund? It is a long-term commitment, a minimum of 12 years, and that length of time is of extreme credit to the minister, who fought long and hard for that longevity.

It is a substantial commitment, $360 million. The official opposition keeps knocking that, keeps minimizing it; the official opposition keeps demeaning this amount as insignificant. They keep distorting the truth by not indicating that this is over and above everything else that is in place. That is a significant amount. It is an amount and a fund that other areas of the province are envious of and it is something the north can be proud of.

The board will be made up of a cross-section of northerners, and only northerners.

The corporation will keep its funds in its own account, separate from the province’s consolidated revenue fund. That is an extremely important thing. It will not be assailable by other funds as they run low.

All the unspent funds in any one year will remain in the fund and will be carried over for use in the corporation in future years. That is a major departure from how the general fund is operated as well.

The corporation has the authority to invest any funds not needed in the short term and interest earned will revert to the corporation’s account.

Finally, the board has the responsibility of defining its own specific terms of reference, consistent with the act -- a tremendous amount of authority and responsibility given to northerners to speak for and do for the north.

How is this mandate different from what the government is doing now?

Once again, the northern development councils had tremendous input into this. Through the consultation, one message has come through loud and clear: northerners want to help themselves. This is one major vehicle of doing that.

The opposition has raised the question. “Does this fund mean the end of all other northern funds and programs?” The answer unequivocally is no. All existing government of Ontario program commitments targeted to northern Ontario will be met.

What will the relationship of the board be to Fednor, the federal government, and other levels? One intention of the heritage fund is to complement, not duplicate, other existing programs. The corporation has the freedom to co-operate with any other organization it wishes to, and officials from Fednor have already expressed an interest in co-operating with the heritage fund. I think that is a commendable situation. The two levels of government often vie with each other and compete, instead of working together.

How will the board be appointed? The board of directors of the corporation will be appointed after the enabling legislation is passed by the Legislature. The sooner we move on it, the sooner the board can be appointed and move into action.

When will this board be announced? As the minister has already stated, when this legislation has been passed by the Legislature.

How long will this fund be around? When Dr. Rosehart, president of Lakehead University and chairman of the committee that produced the Rosehart report, commented on this fund, in all truth and honesty he did indicate that he felt $30 million a year was smaller than what he had hoped for. But he continued on to say the longevity of the fund, the 12 years, and the possibility of its continuation, were far greater than he had hoped for. I think that speaks very well, again, of the commitment of the government and the strength of the argument the minister put forth for this fund.

1710

How will this board of the heritage fund be accountable to the people of Ontario? That is extremely important. It is important that it not make the mistakes other funds have made and turn good ideas into sour and embarrassing things.

There are a number of mechanisms that are going to be put in place to make these board members accountable to the public. The board of directors is responsible for preparing an annual public report of the corporation’s activities.

A memorandum of understanding will be signed between the board and the government of Ontario outlining all the obligations and responsibilities of the board. The Provincial Auditor will prepare annual audits of the corporation and the board will be responsible to undertake a thorough evaluation of its activities in year four of its term.

Where will this board be located? The decision has not been made other than that it will be located in some municipality in the north.

There has been some question this afternoon too on the relationship of the northern Ontario heritage fund, the northern Ontario development fund and Nordev, the northern Ontario regional development program.

The northern development fund is a $100 million commitment made by the government in 1985 to expand provincial programming to northern Ontario. Many new initiatives in economic development, tourism, education, native development and other areas are being implemented under this fund. The heritage fund is being undertaken in addition to the northern development fund and would be controlled by this board.

As for Nordev, it was originally funded as a three-year, $10-million program. All the funds were committed but not spent before the three-year period expired. The northern development fund was used to extend the program’s funding by another $20 million and its time period by five years. Because of Nordev’s popularity, the full $20 million was committed by the end of 1987.

Since part of the mandate of the heritage fund is small business development, it is expected that the fund will want to extend the funding and time period of Nordev.

What will be the relationship of the heritage fund to the northern development councils on an ongoing basis? It is anticipated the board will use the northern development councils as a means of gathering input into its discussions. As members know, the councils are there to advise on government policies at the present time. Moreover, some northern development council members will be members of the northern Ontario heritage fund board.

Finally, what will be the relationship of the heritage fund to the Northern Ontario Development Corp.? NODC will continue to be an important agency of the Ontario government and the northern Ontario heritage fund will cooperate closely with NODC in dealings with private sector organizations.

In conclusion, I firmly believe that when the heritage fund receives enabling legislation, it will be a great historic day for northerners and northern Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr. Pouliot: I too wish to welcome the people who are paying the member and the assembly the compliment of a very timely visit. I know the member for Port Arthur is committed to the welfare, and the improved welfare in the future, of the north.

Again, I am a little puzzled that he chooses to be on the defensive. After all, he mentions that the government is under siege. We do not have a minority situation here. There are only 19 members representing the social conscience, coupled with 16 members -- or 17, my apologies -- as representatives of the free enterprise system. It is simple mathematics. It is really an amazing puzzle.

The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Northern Development has mentioned that eventually, in the tone of “if and when,” we might get around to spending $30 million. We are not talking in terms of Taj Mahals here. We are talking in terms of a mere pittance, because that is all.

On the intricacies of how the government is going to spend, how many people will have to get together, the minister is going from a can of worms in terms of process to nothing short of a bag of snakes. Really, the terms are not too strong. This is no big deal. Ask the people of the opposition. They will tell the minister how to spend it very, very quickly. It does not take long to spend $30 million: 15 miles of road. Then we will wait until next year, go to tender. Fifteen miles of new road up north; no big deal.

The minister has a lot of problems and I do not want to share his problems, but I want to wish him well. I think he will need all the luck and the perseverance he can get.

Mr. Pope: Very briefly -- OK, they are gone. Now I want to talk to the parliamentary assistant. I think we deserve some answers out of this parliamentary assistant.

The Deputy Speaker: Through the Speaker, of course.

Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, first, if there were nine points of agreement on the objectives of the fund, why are they not in the bill? If that was the consensus of the councils, why not have the good grace to accept their opinion and put it in the legislation? I do not understand this. There is a generalized “objects” clause. The ministry could have added what the consensus of the councils was. I guess it may not accept that consensus; otherwise, it would have put it in the bill.

The parliamentary assistant says this fund is going to be unassailable because it is in law. I would refer the member to subsection 6(2), which says the minister “may.” “The minister, out of moneys appropriated therefore by the Legislature, may make grants to the corporation.... ” It does not say, at all, that he must deposit $30 million a year for the next 12 years. He may deposit whatever he pleases and under whatever conditions he pleases, so do not tell us the law says something it does not say.

While the parliamentary assistant is answering those questions, maybe he can answer something the minister has not yet answered. Under the 1988-89 estimates, in the ministry’s estimates book, the amount for the northern development fund is $28.7 million. The amount for the northern Ontario heritage fund is $30 million. If the northern development fund is being rolled into the northern Ontario heritage fund, is that going to be $58 million or not?

Mr. Wildman: I listened with interest to the comments of my colleague the member for Port Arthur, and I am concerned about a matter similar to that the member for Cochrane South is worried about.

I am very unhappy with this bill, in that it is in a way an empty bill: It basically leaves it to the corporation to decide its terms of reference. In the three years since it came to power, you would think the government, with its northern development councils, could have developed terms of reference. If there was an agreement on terms of reference, why are they not in the bill?

Also, it is interesting that the parliamentary assistant indicated that the government has as yet not even been able to decide where the corporation should be located. What on earth takes so long? Why is the government bringing in legislation that basically says a fund is going to be established, but leaves it wide open as to how this fund is to operate, who is going to operate it, and does not set forward clear criteria for determining how the money will be disbursed, how it will be used, how applications will be accepted and how the board will operate. I do not understand why it is so difficult. Why are we asked to pass a piece of legislation that simply establishes a fund, without saying how it is going to operate?

Mrs. Marland: We heard the member for Port Arthur talking about the advantages of the northern Ontario heritage fund because it would provide “an equalization of opportunity.” I think those were his words. I am wondering, when this member uses these words, if he has given any thought to the equalization of opportunity for the people of the north to be heard by this government.

1720

I am wondering what putting money in this fund will do to improve that, because we had well demonstrated as recently as about three weeks ago -- and the member for Lake Nipigon will witness this fact -- that when the people of northern Ontario, in particular the people who live in Trout Lake, were not being listened to by this Liberal government, they travelled 1,200 miles down to Queen’s Park in order to be heard about a particular problem that they had, a very real, very serious, very severe problem, namely, extremely high levels of polychlorinated byphenyls in their environment and in their blood count.

What kind of reception did those people from northern Ontario receive from the Liberal government? Not one single back-bencher, let alone the Minister of the Environment himself, had the courtesy to go out and receive these people on the steps of this Legislature.

I have to wonder about the sincerity behind a fund that is set up by a government that does not even listen to the people when they want to speak to it. When those people travel here, because the government does not go there, this government does not care enough about them to address those very real concerns.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member’s time is up.

Mrs. Marland: I have to worry about what will happen when this fund is in action.

The Deputy Speaker: There is no more time. Does the member for Port Arthur wish to respond?

Mr. Kozyra: I think it is worth repeating the four general concepts the northern development councils put forth as strong recommendations. I think it is also worthy of understanding that they can only advise. It is really a statement and a tribute of confidence in the north, in northerners and in this board, which will be composed entirely of northerners, that a mandate did not come down from on high in cabinet, which is not entirely composed of northerners, restricting them as to what they could or could not do.

There is extremely strong direction given under these four points and the nine highly supported items, but it will be up to that board to work with them to develop the mandate. There will be ongoing input from northern development councils. I think it is a distortion of what has been heard to indicate that somehow what will proceed is totally against what has been recommended.

The four things recommended are equalization of opportunity, job creation, diversification of the economic base and priority to single-industry towns in high unemployment areas. Surely no one, especially a board composed of northerners, would find fault with that and go against that mandate.

There was a comment as to $30 million being a mere pittance. Let me say that some years ago, a federal minister lost his seat over referring to $1 million as, “What’s a million’?” Members opposite should not call $30 million a pittance.

Mr. Wildman: It is with great pleasure that I rise to participate in the debate on this legislation.

As members will know, I have taken some considerable interest in the proposal for a northern Ontario fund over the years. It has been a long time coming.

Members will recall that when the former member for Algoma-Manitoulin finally persuaded his government that it was a good idea to establish what was then called the Ministry of Northern Affairs in 1977, my former colleague from Sudbury East, in a debate on that piece of legislation, moved amendments that would have established a fund. At that time, his amendments were not carried by the House. They were not accepted by the then government or by the Liberal opposition at that time.

I congratulated my colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin at that time for having the tenacity to argue that there should be a northern Ontario ministry. Some people cynically suggested at that time that the main reason he was interested in having a northern Ontario ministry was that he was the only northern Conservative member at that time who did not have a cabinet post. However, unfortunately for Mr. Lane, prior to the establishment of this new ministry, the then Minister of Natural Resources, the Honourable Leo Bernier, got into some problems, was removed from his Ministry of Natural Resources and moved to Northern Affairs, so poor John Lane did not even get his cabinet post out of the deal.

At any rate, he did not want just to have a cabinet post for himself; he wanted to have a ministry that was concerned with northern Ontario and would deal with the need for northern Ontario development. I think it was most unfortunate, though, that the government of the day did not choose to establish, as part of that legislation, a northern Ontario fund.

We have been talking about it for some time. I note that the current Minister of Northern Development, my good friend the member for Cochrane North, has been making a lot of statements across northern Ontario -- they were referred to by my friend the member for Cochrane South -- about the reason it has taken so long to establish this fund.

He said, and I quote, “The opposition won’t agree and people are talking about it taking too long, but they should know how long the government takes.” Frankly, I think that explains why it has taken so long. We all are learning around here how long it takes the government to do anything.

Mr. Black: Can’t get the bills covered.

Mr. Wildman: No, he was talking about the government.

He then went on to talk about the situation in the Legislature at the time. This is a newspaper article I am reading. It says, “He also noted that the current delay is because of the stalling tactics of the opposition.”

Mr. Black: Reading petitions.

Mr. Wildman: Reading petitions, ringing bells and so on. I want to remind the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) that --

The Deputy Speaker: Through the Speaker.

Mr. Wildman: Through the Speaker, certainly. We in the opposition did not hold up the House for two years because of our concerns about the Sunday shopping legislation this government is hiving off to the municipalities. That is how long it has taken this government to act on a promise. They first promised it, and then last year, almost a year ago to the day, the Treasurer announced it in his budget in 1987. And we waited and we waited and there was no stalling in the House. The minister said there was an election.

There certainly was an election, but the election did not take place until September. The legislation was promised in April, in the budget. There was no legislation in May or June. Then after the election in September, we of course did not come back, because the Premier did not want to face this House for some reason until November 3 and still we had no legislation.

We tried to find out what the ministry was doing. I called the deputy minister and I talked to the minister. He said: “Oh well, we’re working out the criteria here. We’re working out how it’s going to work. We’re working this out. We’ve got a lot of problems getting it before cabinet.”

That is what takes this government so long. They have so many problems getting things before cabinet. Well, he said he was working out the criteria, so when the bill came out, when the bill was finally tabled on first reading, I looked very carefully for the criteria that were so long in development and that were obviously so well thought out. But as the parliamentary assistant just stated in his speech, which I enjoyed, there are no criteria in the bill. There is nothing there. It says that the board, which will be comprised of northerners, which I think is a good thing, will establish the criteria.

What took so long then? If the government was trying to work out the criteria, what happened? They finally got embarrassed about how long it was taking for them to develop this legislation and bring it before the House, so they decided, “Well, we can’t work out the criteria, so we’ll bring forward the legislation anyway and we’ll have no criteria in it.”

1730

Interjection.

Mr. Wildman: I understand my friend the member for Cochrane North very well, I understand his commitment to the north and I feel sorry that he was unable to bring forward in this Legislature the kind of criteria he must have wanted and was working on for so long.

After my former colleague from Sudbury East introduced amendments in 1977, there was discussion off and on for close to eight years about the establishment of a northern Ontario fund, controlled by northerners, which would help to diversify the economy of northern Ontario.

Then in 1986 my former colleague from Port Arthur, the predecessor of the parliamentary assistant, brought forward a resolution that was debated in the minority House for the establishment of a northern Ontario fund. During that debate on November 6, 1986, Mr. Foulds stated that what was needed was “an independent northern Ontario economic diversification fund, managed by northerners, in order to diversify the northern Ontario economy, especially in single-industry towns.

“Through loans, grants and joint ventures, this fund would be invested in development projects that meet the priorities set through community, regional and provincial planning, as well as through specific community resource planning agreements signed between the provincial government, the local communities and the resource industries involved.”

That was a very interesting debate, and it is significant that the resolution was passed by the Legislature, so we had a statement of opinion by the Legislative Assembly that the members of the House supported the principle of a northern Ontario fund.

This is not something, of course, that just came out of the air. It has been noted by even the Treasurer in this House that the north produces a lot more wealth for this province than it gets in return, either through private investment or public investment by the provincial government. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk -- -is it still Brant-Oxford-Norfolk?

Mr. Harris: Close enough.

Mr. Wildman: Oh, no; it is Brant-Haldimand now. The member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has admitted that perhaps as much as $5 million more a year comes into the provincial coffers from northern Ontario than is returned by the provincial government each year. He admitted that something must be done, but we all know that the Treasury officials were opposed to the concept of a separate fund, a fund that would be administered by northerners and would not be part of the consolidated revenue fund, and for that reason I congratulate the member for Cochrane North in his work to try to persuade his cabinet colleagues to accept this principle that was accepted by the Legislature in November 1986.

But I want to make clear that the fund we have been talking about is very different from the kind of fund that is being proposed in this legislation. First off, we all recognize that northern Ontario is not experiencing the same tremendous economic growth that we are seeing in southern Ontario.

Mr. Swart: Parts of southern Ontario.

Mr. Wildman: Well, particularly, my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold says, parts of southern Ontario, I am speaking particularly about the Golden Horseshoe, the Metropolitan Toronto area, which is experiencing a boom. I recognize that other parts of southern Ontario are not growing as quickly.

Mr. Black: Napanee.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, I hear a member saying Napanee. Is it not significant that this government is giving somewhere in the neighbourhood of $30 million, I understand, in loans to Goodyear to help it establish in Napanee? Is that figure not interesting: $30 million for one project in eastern Ontario; $30 million for the whole of northern Ontario each year? That shows what kind of commitment this government has to the north. You could not even have one major development in the north to produce jobs with the amount of money that is promised per year with this fund.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I am listening very carefully, and there are quite a number of members speaking at the same time.

Mr. Callahan: That’s unusual.

Mr. Speaker: Very. I will listen to the member for Algoma, and I am certain he will address his remarks through the chair.

Mr. Wildman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your intervening, because the other side was being provocative.

The fact is that the government, I understand, has also committed something like $50 million for a Toyota plant in Cambridge -- $50 million for one project -- yet we are talking about --

Some hon. members: It’s a loan.

Mr. Wildman: Even a loan. All I am saying is that $50 million is what is required to get jobs in Cambridge in one project, whether it is a loan, a grant or whatever, and all this government is budgeting is $30 million a year for all of northern Ontario. It shows that there is really no commitment on the part of the government for economic development in the north.

If there were just one major project, which I would like to see, whether in Sudbury, North Bay, Timmins, Thunder Bay or one of the small communities in the north, one project the equivalent of either of the two I mentioned in southern and eastern Ontario, it would take the whole fund for one year. It would take the whole fund.

Mr. Smith: Does the plant want to go up there?

Mr. Wildman: That is the other problem we have been dealing with for so long, as the member for Lambton says. I feel sorry for the member for Cochrane North, who is having to deal with those kinds of attitudes over there.

As my friend the member for Lake Nipigon said, the market will decide. As long as the market decides, we are not going to have the kind of economic growth in northern Ontario that they have taken for granted in southern Ontario, and there is no way this kind of fund is going to do anything about it.

In northern Ontario we will continue to have double the unemployment we have in southern Ontario. We will continue to have outmigration, particularly of our young people. We will have the current stagnation. It is true that we have recovered somewhat from the recession of the early 1980s, but we have not in any way kept pace with what is happening in this part of the province, and this kind of fund is not going to do anything about it.

We had last year, at the time the federal government agreed with the American government on the softwood lumber export tax which was acquiesced in by this government -- a promise by this Premier that that money would be used to assist the lumber communities and the workers in northern Ontario who were being displaced by the additional cost of our lumber in the American market.

Over two years that has amounted to something over $60 million in revenue that will be coming to this government from the federal government in transfers from the softwood lumber tax. The Treasurer has admitted in this House that not one cent of that has been spent to assist the communities which have been dislocated.

Is it not significant that, in one year, the amount accruing in the revenue from the softwood lumber tax is almost exactly the amount that is promised in this bill for the northern Ontario heritage fund each year? This government is not even committing any provincial funds for the northern Ontario fund. It is all coming from the transfers from the softwood lumber tax, which should never have been imposed in the first place.

When we talked about a fund, we talked about one that was patterned on the Alberta and Saskatchewan heritage funds. They are very different funds. In those cases, those provincial governments took revenue from their resource development, whether it be oil or gas or whatever, and deposited a significant amount of capital in a fund, which would be self-perpetuating and would grow. They took a significant infusion of capital at the beginning, which would then be used over the years for economic diversification as the resources were depleted.

This concept proposed in this legislation is nothing like that. What the government is simply doing is establishing a program which will get $30 million each year for 12 years. If the government were really interested in establishing a northern Ontario fund, it would establish its $360 million at the beginning, not $30 million a year. Proportionally, if we were going to establish a fund similar to the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund in this province for our northern area, we would be having to establish a capital fund of about $500 million.

1740

Mr. Morin-Strom: Just to start?

Mr. Wildman: At the start. We would be prepared to see that money over a period of time, maybe over three years, so that then we have the fund, we have the capital which would accrue in interest, grow, be self-perpetuating and go on for over 12 years. I do not think it is unreasonable to talk about those kinds of figures when one considers the wealth that we produce in northern Ontario. Do the members realize that in stumpage alone this government receives between $60 million and $70 million a year in revenue from northern Ontario?

Over and above that, the mining tax, which is not very high, produces $50 million in revenue for this government a year. So we are talking, in revenue each year, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $120 million just from lumber and mining. If we get $120 million a year in revenue, by God, we should be getting that much back at least. We are not.

When the Alberta fund was first established, did the members know how much money they put into it, what the capital fund was? Initially $1.5 billion was invested in the Alberta fund and this government says maybe we should not see $30 million as a pittance compared to $1.5 billion?

Mr. Black: It is a different scenario --

Mr. Wildman: It is a different scenario, and that is what is wrong with this legislation. This legislation should have been patterned after that bill. The Rosehart committee has been mentioned in this debate. I am very interested in the Rosehart report and what has happened to it since it was published since, as the members know, through the kindness of the Minister of Northern Development, three members of the Legislature were able to participate in that Rosehart exercise. I was one of those members. I have a certain commitment to the recommendations made by that report.

Particularly, I would like to deal with that recommendation that talked about the wealth of the north, the return to the north and what should be done in terms of a fund. I quote from recommendation 27:

“Historically, residents of the north have been concerned about the depletion of the natural resource base and the outflows of the mineral and forest wealth. Present estimates place the value of the northern minerals and forest production in excess of $15 billion per year.” That is the total amount of wealth generated by forestry and mining.

The report goes on to say:

“Little of this money has traditionally been reinvested in the north and the situation is further compounded by the continued depression of base metal prices and weak commodity prices for pulp and paper products. At the present time a variety of government programs exist both federally and in Ontario that can be used to stimulate development of new business and industry. Such initiatives, although laudable, have failed to create a significant long-term focus for development in the north. It is the belief of the committee that the opportunity exists and the political will is present in Ontario to provide such a focus for development.”

Then it goes on and proposes a northern Ontario fund. Significant in that proposal, in recommendation 28, are these statements:

“(iv) an additional commitment financed through a percentage of provincial revenues from resource industry taxation. The appropriate percentage can only be determined by observing the initial operating year or two of the fund.

“(v) a negotiated yearly federal government financial commitment through the federal government’s Canadian jobs strategy program.”

Obviously, the Rosehart committee was talking about a lot more money than $30 million a year and it was also talking about not revenue per year but the establishment of a capital fund at the beginning, which would grow. I was part of those debates and I know that is what the Rosehart committee was talking about. The parliamentary assistant admitted in his comments that Dr. Rosehart does think that $30 million is not sufficient, and it is not.

I want to make clear too that our concept of a fund is not just a bad-weather fund, not just a fund to deal with the problems of one-industry towns in bad times. That was referred to, I think, by my friend the member for Port Arthur as well. It seems to me that we should be developing this kind of fund to assist particularly one-industry towns in boom times and not waiting for bust times to be investing money in the north.

If one has to look at the communities of Manitouwadge, Marathon and even White River in the Hemlo area, which my friend the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) is familiar with, we all know that there is an enormous gold boom going on there in one of the richest goldfields in the world. But anybody who lives and works in Marathon or Manitouwadge knows that those communities are as vulnerable today in a time of boom as they were when the base metal commodity prices bottomed out and there were layoffs in the mining industry.

The fact is that they are still dependent on world commodity prices and, in this case particularly, on gold prices on the world market. Everybody knows that, in the mining industry in particular, as soon as you open the mine the first day, you are on the way to closing it down because it is a finite resource and it is going to run out eventually.

We should be ensuring that part of the revenue that is coming from the Hemlo field is invested in this kind of fund so that we can be working to diversify the economies of those communities so they are not solely dependent on gold. Whether we like it or not, the fact is that the gold market is not going to remain the way it is now for ever.

I think that this legislation is inadequate. I think it is inadequate that we continue, in dealing with communities like Marathon and Manitouwadge, to give ad hoc government grants to these communities so they can deal with the boom or that we give more ad hoc grants to other communities that are experiencing economic recession so they can help to weather the storm of economic downturn.

That is not acceptable any more in northern Ontario. That is why it is accepted across northern Ontario that we should have a fund, that we should be diversifying the economy of the north, that we should be following the example of Alberta and Saskatchewan. While they are as vulnerable as we are in relation to oil-and-gas and potash, at least they have acted to provide themselves with some capital that can be used to try to ensure that the economies of one-industry towns are diversified so that they can continue to operate and do not become the ghost towns that we have known, especially in the mining industry across northern Ontario, since the beginning of the development of the north. That is just not acceptable any more.

So what is necessary’? It seems to me that we obviously need a lot more money in this fund. This is not adequate, and, for that reason, I will not support this legislation. It is inadequate.

We also need to ensure that this fund is indeed controlled by northerners. I know the parliamentary assistant has said that the board will be all northerners and it will decide its own criteria, but I want to ensure that we put ordinary, average working people in control of this fund and keep it out of the hands of the principals of the multinationals and the corporate interests that operate in the north.

This fund should not be just another source of government handouts to the resource companies, and I am afraid it might become that. This fund must be used to deal with the underdevelopment across northern Ontario that these companies historically have left in their wake in every small one-industry town in our part of the province.

1750

This bill is not adequate because it does not clearly spell out how the moneys will be used, the kinds of projects that will be used. I do not want the money in this fund to be spent on studies and more consultants, even if they are all northern consultants. Consultancy is the fastest-growing industry in northern Ontario. Whenever you do not know how to deal with a problem, you hire a consultant. If someone wants to make money in northern Ontario, he should become a consultant. For heaven’s sake, he should not work in a resource industry or try to develop a small business.

This money should be used in joint ventures with government involvement, because the government has to play a proactive role in the northern economy. If it is left simply to the private sector, we will not be changing anything. We will just be giving it some of this $30 million to help it continue doing what it has done historically in northern Ontario.

This fund should be a vehicle to return from the resource companies to the working people and communities of the north some of the wealth that they have produced. The fund must have guaranteed, ongoing moneys and must not be subject to the whims of the Treasurer of the day.

I think I have made clear what my concerns are with regard to this legislation. I am reminded in this speech of a comment that was made by a great orator, a much greater speaker than I, Tommy Douglas, in which he once said about Liberal governments --

Mr. Dietsch: Nobody is a better speaker than you.

Mr. Wildman: Well, the member obviously never heard Tommy then.

Mr. Philip: I agree Tommy was a better speaker than you.

Mr. Wildman: I never claimed otherwise. Tommy once said of Liberal governments that they had a tendency to steal socialists’ pyjamas. He said that and he was right. Liberal governments for years have been stealing our pyjamas, but as Tommy said. “For crying out loud, when you steal our pyjamas, wear them all, not just the tops.”

Mr. Pope: I heard the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) comment on the dress of the Minister of Northern Development, but I am not going to get into that.

The Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) is here, the only winner out of the Temagami wilderness dispute today. He managed to preserve it for tourism, but no one else has a look in. I congratulate him.

I was interested in the comments of the member for Algoma and I wonder if he could comment on the fact that during the time that this government has delayed bringing in this legislation, the main office expenses of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines increased by $666,000; the analysis and planning budget increased by $123,500; the information services budget increased by $403,500; the legal services budget increased by $72,600; the financial services budget increased by $909,100; personnel services increased by $204,700; supply and office services increased by $3,465,300, and systems development services increased by $844,300.

I wonder if the member can comment on all these expenditures here in Toronto in the operation of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines while we waited for our northern Ontario heritage fund.

Mr. Callahan: It is somewhat unusual, I guess, to have somebody from southern Ontario rising on this, but I think some things should be put in perspective.

Mr. Philip: You’re certainly the one to do it.

Mr. Callahan: I thank the member. I can always count on him for something positive.

The statement was made that the fund does not exist. The fact that the fund exists is clearly covered under subsection 6(1), and people in this Legislature who are in the legal profession should understand that. It says “the corporation shall establish and maintain.” It is mandatory.

As far as the investment of those moneys is concerned, I think the taxpayers of this province would expect that the moneys would continue to be invested so that they would in fact generate greater funds for northern Ontario and its development; but they remain within the northern communities’ designation, within the northern communities’ opportunities to solve a problem which I think every member of this Legislature understands is a problem that is unique and has to be solved. It was not solved over the 42 years of the previous government.

I might add as well, with reference to the objects, that this is a statutory corporation that has been set up. I think my friend the member for Cochrane South would understand the factor that if you spell out the objects too narrowly, what in fact you do is bind the hands of the minister and the boards in terms of using those moneys in a creative way to establish a new life for northern Ontario.

So I suggest that some of the arguments that have been put forward, particularly by those people who have legal training, are absolute balderdash. They are telling the people of northern Ontario things that are not correct. I suggest that the members look at them, because what this act does is give the minister the opportunity, with the use of boards and people in northern Ontario, to shape and to work out the problems of northern Ontario --

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Callahan: -- rather than limit the objects they have the moneys available for.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I would like to congratulate my colleague the member for Algoma on the points he made in regard to this so-called heritage fund that is being proposed by this Liberal government.

The real commitment to this fund is put in perspective when one looks at the contrast between the $30 million they are going to put into this fund and what, by their own admission, is $48 million a year to pay the salaries of 1,600 jobs going to northern Ontario. It costs $48 million to buy 1,600 jobs in northern Ontario.

We have another investment, $300 million by Goodyear, for which the government is providing a loan of over $30 million. That would have used our whole fund in order to stimulate one investment providing 900 jobs in southern Ontario.

We have in the order of more than 50,000 unemployed in northern Ontario and we have to address that problem. The size of this fund is not going to provide the kind of stimulus we need to have a significant impact on what is going on in the north. It is up to the Liberals to recognize that in fact this fund may be of some value 12 years from now if they do not squander it all and if we do have the $360 million in place 12 years from now, but it is going to do very little today to stimulate new investment and provide the jobs we do need in the north.

Mr. Harris: I want to say that I enjoyed the remarks of the member for Algoma. As he indicated, it is a principle for which he has fought for a good period of time and it is a principle -- I guess it was about 1986 that the Legislature concurred -- whose time had come.

I share some of the concerns, however, that the member has put forward in that it really was not what was expected. I guess there are two things I might ask the member to comment on. One is the comments of the member for Brampton South, who commented on subsection 6(1). I would have thought that he, as a lawyer, might have had enough intelligence to read to the operative subsection, 6(2), but he did not.

Subsection 6(1) says, “Shall establish and maintain a fund known as the northern Ontario heritage fund.” That is fine, but whether the Treasurer and the Premier appropriate $30 million or not, subsection 6(2) gives the minister the discretion to say, “I have $30 million here in my little hand, boys, but I am not giving it to you unless I agree with what you are doing.” It says “may.”

So when you talk about control in the north, you give them the money. You do not say, “May, if I am happy.” So if the minister does not like what the people in the north want, if it is not politically suitable for him, my interpretation of this is that he may give them nothing. That is the operative section on which I would appreciate comments from the member for Algoma.

Unfortunately, these guys from the south do not read too good either, whether they are lawyers or not.

Mr. Wildman: I want to thank the members for their comments. I understand the remarks of the member for Cochrane South, and I agree that if you look at the amount spent on things like analysis, planning and communications in the ministry head office, it certainly makes the $30 million promised in this fund pale.

I want to say to the member for Brampton South that one of the best decisions I think I ever made was not to go into law school, and I think his comments confirmed that in my mind.

I will say, too, that he wants to put this in perspective. He does not want the fund defined too narrowly. I tell him, this fund in this bill is not defined at all. As the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) said, with 50,000 people unemployed, we would very much like to see in any community in northern Ontario a government commitment similar to the commitment made to Goodyear in Napanee. But I will tell members, if they made the same commitment in any community in northern Ontario, that would use up the whole fund for one year. It would all be gone.

With regard to my friend the member for Nipissing, I think he is quite right that the operative article is subsection 6(2), and it is obvious from this that the minister has the final discretion and the final say. This is not an independent board in the sense that the parliamentary assistant tried to describe it. It is, in fact, still subject to whether or not it is going to get yearly funding.

That is why I say we have got to have a fund established, similar to the Alberta and Saskatchewan funds, with capital at the beginning, which will then become self-perpetuating and which the board could operate on its own.

À la suite d’une motion présentée par M. Harris, le débat est ajourné.

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

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

May 17, 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

WASTE MANAGEMENT

NATIONAL TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK

ONTARIO HYDRO ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRE

MINISTRY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

GOODYEAR CANADA INC.

TEMAGAMI ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NATIONAL TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK

BRANTWOOD MANOR NURSING HOME

RESPONSES

NATIONAL TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK

BRANTWOOD MANOR NURSING HOME

NATIONAL TOURISM AWARENESS WEEK

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEMAGAMI ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CHILD CARE

MINISTRY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

TEMAGAMI ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CHILD CARE STUDY

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

TREE PLANTING

ACCESS FUND

PETITIONS

ÉCOLE FRANÇAISE SAINTE-BRIGITTE

TAX INCREASES

ROUGE VALLEY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TAX INCREASES

ONTARIO HYDRO ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRE

INSTITUTIONAL CARE WORKERS

TAX INCREASES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

GASOLINE HANDLING AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

LOI SUR LE FONDS PATRIMONIAL DU NORD DE L’ONTARIO / NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND ACT