Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TOURISM (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: Before we start on the work of the evening, the hon. member for St. George would like to draw something to the attention of the House.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should like to take this opportunity of introducing to this House the 108th Boy Scout Troop, which is from the great riding of St. George, under the leadership of Mr. Anastasio. With him are Messrs. Paige and Hayman.

Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): Mr. Chairman, just before we commence proceedings, I understand that there are members here from the 132nd Toronto Boy Scout Troop, led tonight by Mr. Foster.

On vote 2001:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister would like to make several comments.

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Chairman, I have one comment to try to clear up a matter that was raised by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent). Before I commence on it may I say that I, like most ministers I suppose, have problems when we go through reorganization. There’s the transferring back and forth of personnel and projects from one division of the ministry to another, and that creates some confusion. But I’d like to spend a moment to try, in the terms that I understand it, to explain to the hon. members the point raised by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

First of all, the total estimates of the ministry in 1973-1974 as shown in the 1974-1975 estimates book before you, is the same as those listed in the 1973-1974 estimates book. Namely $64,904,000 less an amount of $402,000 transferred to Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs re the Ontario Economic Council, which as you will recall was some time ago transferred over by the Premier (Mr. Davis). That leaves a net position of $64,502,000.

During last year, through reorganization, ministry functions were moved to new programmes. One example is Ontario House, London, England. In 1973-1974, under vote 1901, item 4, this is shown as $296,000; which covers the administration and representation aspects of this operation. The remainder of the $245,800 is shown under vote 1902, items 1, 2 and 3, prorated within these activities but not identified as separate amounts. The total of the above, $541,800, is shown as one item in the 1974-1975 estimates, under vote 2005, item 2.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Be careful.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is common practice when significant reorganization takes place within the government that the following year’s estimates books, when recording the previous year’s estimates, adjust these figures to allow the members to do a comparison between new funds requested and the amount previously provided in the estimates.

It is our desire, Mr. Chairman, to try and relate funds from last year’s estimates and compare them to this year’s estimates. I hope this explanation fills the requirements.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Chairman, that does not excuse the fact that in the documents in front of us we have a statement that is not true. I appreciate the minister’s explanation, but I suggest that they got busy over the supper hour and doctored this up again. I say the word “doctored” kindly, but the fact is that we have a document in front of us that is not what should be before the House when we’re talking about these sums of money.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that when the minister wants a vote passed in which we have these repeated irregularities that are not documented and not supported and unfounded, the vote should carry a proviso noting that the estimates report a figure of $97,000 improperly recorded and unsupported and to read further that the vote be passed with the addition of $97,000.

I think that is the only proper way to handle the estimates, because in the next vote we are going to talk about a $1 million difference. I don’t see, Mr. Minister, how you can expect us to weigh the estimates properly if they come here with figures that have no previous appearance before this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, a year ago when we dealt with the ministry we were not dealing with reorganization and re-establishment of new accounts. At some point or other you must relate the ones that you had in last year’s estimates to the current year’s requirements, and that is exactly what we have attempted to do. As I said to the House, last year’s estimates were $64,502,000. That was what we budgeted for, and that is what we came down to the House with in our estimates. We have now shown you that $64,502,000 is the figure we have worked to and we reallocated --

Mr. Sargent: We are not talking about the overall; we are talking about this vote. I would say most respectfully that we have to deal with this vote and not the overall amount.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The hon. member is being repetitious.

Mr. Sargent: What do you mean being repetitious? Mr. Chairman, I say respectfully that if you are going to allow this kind of hanky-panky to go on then we should forget about the estimates entirely. You know that money is not in the estimates properly; you know that, sir.

Mr. Chairman: It seems to me the hon. minister has given a satisfactory explanation. The hon. member for Cochrane South.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would agree that the first vote is the place to discuss the northern resources exhibition centre.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I would say, Mr. Chairman, that we should really be discussing it under tourism and development.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): As a point of information then, since we are restricted to a definite number of hours for discussing all particular estimates, and more specifically this estimate, and have agreed that two sittings would be allocated to this, how do you propose to handle it, Mr. Chairman? Are you going to have a wide-ranging debate on anything within the estimates or are you going to insist on passing one particular item before another?

Mr. Chairman: It was my intention to deal with the two items in 2001 collectively, and then when we go into 2002 to do it item by item as quickly as we can. Is that agreeable with the members? The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few comments to the minister and ask him for his opinion.

Back on Oct. 24 the minister spoke to the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association at the Inn on the Park. He made the following comments that I want to bring to his attention, and I want to ask him what his opinion and what his stand is concerning the comments.

On page 11 of his comments he talks about the removal of the seven per cent sales tax on production machinery. I want to know if the minister agrees with that and if the minister presented that point of view with strong emphasis to his cabinet colleagues.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, in my presentation to the cabinet and to the Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. White), I very clearly indicated to them that I thought we should, in the interests of trying to develop new economic means in this province, give them an incentive by removing that particular tax.

Mr. B. Newman: Right. I am glad to hear that, because in the past we on this side of the House attempted to point out to the government the merits of the removal of the five per cent sales tax -- especially myself, coming from a highly industrialized area in which the auto parts industry, in addition to the automobile industry, is of vital concern to the economy of the area. We thought that could have been an added incentive in the bleaker days to encourage greater development, especially in the auto parts manufacturing business.

I wanted to ask the minister if he likewise agrees with municipal incentives to encourage industry to come into a community to develop industry?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, again when we talk about municipal incentives, it is a pretty wide-ranging programme. I think responsibility for trying to stimulate new activity industrially really comes back to the province, and that we must do it on a unified basis with some leaning toward regional economic development.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I think your point is well taken. Rather than having one municipality vying with another in an attempt to attract industry, and in this way undercut the whole programme, it would be better if it were done at the provincial level. These are my own opinions concerning that, Mr. Minister.

Now the other thing I wanted to ask of the minister is relief from increased hydro and transportation rates, because this has been a topic of quite some concern since about six or eight years ago. Does the ministry still agree there should be relief from increased hydro and transportation rates?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that hydro should be used as a development tool -- one that is going to be underwritten by the general taxpayers of the rest of the province.

While some provinces might use it as a means of directing industry into certain parts of the province, I think in the final analysis it doesn’t really measure up to the standards that we believe we should be using for new development programmes in Ontario.

As far as transportation is concerned, we are forever working with transportation companies. Just a week or so ago I met again with the CNR people to discuss further positions as to where relief might be extended to certain specific industries in Ontario. As an example, there are the scrap dealers. We are having some difficulty in moving their commodities at a realistic rate.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kent is next.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister some questions in regard to reorganizing the regional councils across the Province of Ontario. We understand there are 12 regional councils in the Province of Ontario at the present time; but under these regional councils, you have two regional tourist associations. We find, Mr. Minister, that members of these county tourist associations have to drive long distances to attend the meetings of the regional councils --

Mr. Stokes: That is the last vote.

Mr. Spence: Is it? Well, I will wait then. But I thought this was planning of programmes that were carried out by the ministry in this past year.

I would say, Mr. Minister, that the attendance at some of these meetings is getting very discouraging. I would say further, Mr. Minister, the president and the manager are the only two who receive any remuneration for attending these committee meetings. And I would say that there is a feeling of discouragement on the part of a number of those who have been attending to have to drive such long distances to the meetings. Today, we have so many places to go every night or every week that attendance is getting to be a burden to some of the members who have been interested and who have done a lot toward the tourist industry in the Province of Ontario.

I would say, Mr. Minister, it looks to me as though these regional tourist associations are getting a little too big -- getting a little too far away from individuals who are interested in encouraging and improving our tourist industry.

It has been brought to my attention a number of times the distances they have to travel with no remuneration. It is getting to be a burden. I wonder if you could inform me if you find this in other parts of the Province of Ontario. It looks to me, Mr. Minister, as if we are getting a little too far away from the grass roots and those on the back concessions, who are certainly interested in developing the tourist industry in this province.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, do you wish me to answer this one on this particular vote, or wait until it comes up in vote 2004?

Mr. Spence: Any time you want.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Then it will be on vote 2004.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I’m easy on the rest of this vote, but special projects and personnel are not included in this. Where are those people going to be used? Where are they employed now?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Under the last vote -- administration.

Mr. Sargent: Okay.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: I wanted to ask of the minister if the ministry is doing any planning at this stage concerning the technology that will be required as a result of the Ministry of Environment’s recent announcement on developing waste reclamation and recycling plants in six different areas of the province?

Most of that technology is going to have to be imported from the United States. I would hope, Mr. Minister, that some type of arrangement could be made so that the major portions of any facility in the waste reclamation projects could be of Canadian make or of Ontario make so that our own people could have the benefit of the employment on a government development programme.

I would also hope that the minister would pursue this; because as the first six projects prove to be of some value, it is only natural that idea would expand throughout the Province of Ontario and it would make that many more job opportunities available to the citizens of this province.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, in regard to strategic planning, who is the chief strategist and what is he paid?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Our chief gentleman is Mr. Cooper and his annual honorarium --

Mr. Sargent: Honorarium? Do you mean salary?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I will check on it. I think it is $34,000.

Mr. Sargent: What are his qualifications?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to send to the member all of the information related to Mr. Cooper, who is employed in the ministry and is in charge of strategic planning.

Mr. Sargent: What does he do? What is the strategy? What do you do in strategic planning?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Strategic planning is the section of the ministry which looks at development policies, setting up the guidelines for future development, determining where industry is going and what we should be doing to make sure that we accomplish our goals. They also are our communication link between the provincial government.

Mr. Sargent: Do you direct where industry should go?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No sir.

Mr. Sargent: Why not?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We indicate to industry areas we think appropriate and we give them a choice of two or three locations in this province. We do not zero in and tell them that they should be in a specific location. They tell us the requirements they have to make their industry function properly. We relate that to the information we have about various municipal industrial parks across this province and supply it to the industry. It is their choice from that point on.

Mr. Chairman: This could be more suitably dealt with in the next vote.

Mr. Sargent: We are talking about strategy, aren’t we?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, but industrial development is on the next vote.

Mr. Sargent: We are talking on vote 2002; and it’s strategic planning.

Mr. Chairman: We are talking about vote 2001 at the present time.

Mr. Sargent: I didn’t know you changed it.

Mr. Chairman: We are dealing with 2001. Is 2001 carried?

Mr. Stokes: I have one final question. What does your executive assistant do, or your parliamentary assistant? I see him sitting there. I know he’s led a couple of delegations to --

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Is that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier)?

Mr. Stokes: No, that is the member for Eglinton.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh yes, he came in in January, 1962.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He just sits and smiles.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is waiting for preferment.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary assistant assists the minister in carrying out many responsibilities.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Good.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Thank you very much; and I can assure you there are many occasions when the minister cannot undertake meetings with certain groups or organizations across the province --

Mr. Sargent: Give him his wings and let him fly.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Nor do I always have the number of hours I’d like to have, nor the days available, to go and speak to the number of industrial groups in this province which would like to hear the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Are you spending that much time helping Pierre Benoit win?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Those are things the parliamentary assistant is expected to do, and he carries them out with great ability.

Mr. Chairman: Vote 2001 carried?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, it is carried with the proviso of the addition of $97,000.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Carried.

Mr. Chairman: Is vote 2001 carried?

Vote 2001 agreed to.

On vote 2002:

Mr. B. Newman: Can we take the whole vote at one time?

Mr. Chairman: We will take the whole of vote 2002 at once.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, on this vote you have listed, on page 50, that the 1973-1974 estimates for total industry development come to $4,674,000. The estimates for 1973-1974 list the industrial development budget as $5,935,000. We have a discrepancy here of $1.3 million. It’s the same thing again.

Mr. Minister, what is the reason that you cannot draw up proper estimates? You are $1.3 million out here?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, obviously from vote 2001 through to vote 2005 we are going to have the same kind of discussion that now confronts us. I have explained to the House quite clearly that on reorganization you have the transferring of people and projects from one division of the ministry to another. What we have tried to do here, to assist the members of the House, is pro-rate the portion of last year’s --

Mr. Sargent: Don’t give us that about assisting the members of the House. You have goofed. If we were to do things properly, we would disband this meeting right now.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The minister has the floor. Let him answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Repeating my answer, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, it is a matter of relating last year’s estimates to what we are voting this year -- and I have said this twice or three times tonight -- to give some guidance to the members so we can discuss the estimates of this ministry on a logical and informed basis.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, with respect, page R50 shows the 1973-1974 estimates as totaling $4,674,000. But the 1973-1974 estimates were not that figure; they were $5,935,000. So there is a discrepancy of $1.3 million before this House.

If we were to do things properly, we would say: “Close this meeting off and come back when you can have the estimates in shape.” That’s the way it should be done. All through this piece we have the same bunch of inaccuracies. You can’t talk about millions of dollars this way, Mr. Minister. God help us if this is going on through the whole ministry.

Mr. Chairman: Vote 2002?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Just one final comment, Mr. Chairman. If the member had been looking at other ministries’ estimates, he would find a similar situation where reorganization has created some difficulties.

Mr. Sargent: Does the minister know that to be fact?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Obviously I have looked at the estimates.

Mr. Sargent: Okay. Mr. Chairman, we have a figure in front of us now that the minister cannot support; it is $1.3 million wrong. I suggest the Chair should disband this meeting and we come back when they have the estimates in proper shape. I make that motion.

Mr. Chairman: Is vote 2002 carried?

Mr. Stokes: No.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: I have a question, under item 2 of vote 2002, dealing with the Ontario Research Foundation.

Could the minister give us an outline of what projects have been undertaken by the Ontario Research Foundation since we last discussed it? I know they have undertaken several projects that are of interest to many people throughout the province. I was particularly interested in the progress they are making with a new concept in the recycling of water, or the treatment of sewage within a closed system.

I wonder if Mr. Stadelman or anybody else has an outline or any kind of report on the activities of the Ontario Research Foundation since we last spoke of it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, if we are getting into very specific projects -- and I am not quite sure whether that is what the member for Thunder Bay is asking --

Mr. Stokes: Give us a rundown.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: A list of the projects? Again, Mr. Chairman, I would have to get a complete list of all the projects that have been undertaken by the Ontario Research Foundation. I can say from my very personal observations, having visited the Research Foundation on two occasions over the past year --

Mr. Stokes: I saw the minister’s picture.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Thank you. I hope it was in focus.

I have had the opportunity of looking at some of their experiments and long-range programmes, projects that were designed and brought forward by specific industries on a research fee basis.

One that comes to mind at the moment is related to fireproofing of canvas by an Ontario manufacturer. The research people were able to come up with a solution that gave the material its fire resistance and cut down on what I understand used to be a detrimental effect of fireproofing, the rapid rotting of canvas. That is one of the projects.

The recycling project is still moving along. I am informed they are advancing fairly well and they expect to have it in operation in some six to eight months’ time. That relates to the specific recycling situation we were talking of.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, but does that mean this particular programme will have the ability to be adapted to the specific needs of an entire community? I understand the pilot project dealt specifically with an apartment block. I’m thinking in terms of utilizing that system for a community with an equivalent population -- say a town of 1,000, 1,500 to 2,000. Could you adapt that kind of facility to that kind of need?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I would have to go back, Mr. Stokes, if I could for a moment, to when the Research Foundation first started this on an individual unit basis -- a home or cottage type of unit. It has proved very successful, and there is a licensing arrangement where the province could manufacture an installation now.

It goes on to the next type which is to serve the apartment block or a fairly congested area, and it would appear that it would work effectively. We can only say that the research will continue to see if a particular unit can be adjusted and designed to accommodate a population in communities of the size you have mentioned, of 1,000 to 1,500. There again, it’s a research project and only time will tell us whether we can accomplish it.

Mr. Chairman, before we move off, I believe the member for Windsor-Walkerville asked me, as it relates to this vote, about the technology of environmental waste recycling. We have on several occasions met with community organizations, both commercial and private, in the field of waste control and recycling. We will continue to try and find Canadian manufacturers for some of these machines, which are being produced outside of Canada. We’re trying to find people in the industry group in this province interested in doing just that. We are itemizing the products and the things that we require to complete the industrial scope of the province. This will be one that we shall be looking for -- people either to do the engineering and improvement for Canadian design who want to get involved in licensing or a joint venture.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I’m glad to see you’re aware of this and that your officials have started to look into the programme. We certainly don’t want to see all of the equipment purchased from American corporations if we can develop the technology here, or make licensing arrangements and manufacture the equipment in the Province of Ontario or in Canada.

Mr. Chairman: Will vote 2002 carry? The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): I just wanted to ask the minister if he would comment --

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: Thank you sir. In connection with the cessation of activities of the building systems division of Polysar Ltd. of Milton, how many employees have been discharged? What inventory loss is there? What assistance has been given them in connection with this? What liaison does this minister have with the Housing ministry in connection with the tragic developments in connection with Polysar’s attempt at diversification?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If I may just have a moment. I have been in touch with the “Petrosar” people in regards to their problem --

Mr. Bullbrook: Not “Petrosar”, Polysar.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Polysar, pardon me. When I was in Sarnia, in their discussions with us they told us they could not sell the units. Their inventory was far too high. The principals had decided to cease operations. We did discuss with them the possibilities of trying to maintain some of their staff so they wouldn’t lose the technology and the expertise, and they did for a short period of time.

But just a week or 10 days ago they found they were beyond themselves in trying to maintain the corporate structure. I believe it was in the range of 250 people who were put out of work; and it is also my understanding, sir, that a great number of them have found alternative employment in the general community.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would allow me to continue in this respect? How many people, the minister understands a great number, have secured additional employment? The minister hasn’t answered my last question. What liaison has the minister had with the Housing ministry? I want to enlarge that and ask the minister what liaison has he had with the Housing industry in connection with the development of the product of Polysar Building Systems -- and I want the minister to know I am no instrument of advocacy for them, I am interested myself.

What inventory loss was there? You just have to drive by the place and know there is a great inventory loss. What has the minister done for them?

This is a sick industry, right? Here you have a major industry, funded to a great extent by the federal government, which attempted to diversify, and bought licensing arrangements in the United States, right? They brought them into Canada, they went into full production and they had no market.

Now I am interested in knowing what the minister did for them. I think the minister would want me to be content with a very peremptory response, but I can’t be; here is where your ministry should really act.

About ten days ago, we were told they are folding their tent; and it bothers me that they are folding their tent.

This has nothing to do with my riding, but modular development, we were told by your Government Services minister several years ago, was of great advantage, was the new type of building. Now here is a new entry by a company prepared to expend millions of dollars in licensing fees and capital development in connection with modular building systems, and they have gone out of business. I want to know what we have done, I really am interested in this one.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the ministry, when it is advised -- and sometimes we are not advised, we find out because our field representatives happen to be making their plant tours and visits -- but we have become aware of some difficult situations with which the industry is now being confronted. This was one. We were aware of their situation many months ago. We intervened for them with other people in the industry, including mortgage people, because one of the big things they felt was holding them back was that they could not secure mortgages at a realistic rate. Secondly, they could not free up land quickly enough in some communities to go on with the building of the modular development as they had.

Mr. Bullbrook: Could the minister? Could the government? Not the minister, could the government?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Could this government free up the land? I think if the member has been listening --

Mr. Bullbrook: Under the HOME project.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I think it would be years -- mind you, under the HOME project it is a matter of the contractor deciding on the type of unit and construction he wishes. Now I am not the one that is going to tell the member that the modular construction is the greatest thing that ever came to the face of the earth, because I don’t know. But I could tell the member one thing, if I drive by that plant, as he has indicated he has, they really do not send me flying to buy one. That’s a personal opinion. I would think from what their manager and their president have said to me that a degree of market acceptance just didn’t exist within the volumes they were producing. We tried to assist them in finding places to locate their buildings.

Mr. Bullbrook: Give me some specific examples of how the ministry tried to help them please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, if we are going to get into the specifics of this particular project, we will certainly have to go back and get the file out, because I don’t carry that information with me.

Mr. Bullbrook: Would the minister do that for me before we recess tonight?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am not so sure, Mr. Chairman; I will ask the ministry people to see what they can do.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister’s deputy is before him. Would he permit me for a moment? May I? Would the minister yield to me for a moment? The deputy is before you, a man of great ability, and the minister has all his expertise with him.

I am really interested in this. I am interested in what we have done to assist this new concept in building. Because they attempted, as the minister knows, in Kitchener, to initiate some public response themselves. What did we do as a government in this connection? I really am interested, because it really is, I think, a dramatic new way of developing housing, and I wonder whether your ministry has liaison with Housing.

Now generalize with me for a moment on what the minister has done with the Housing Ministry. For example, amassing of land: In Sarnia they had a contract to buy some areas of land privately developed, and this fell awry because of the fact that they decided not to continue their own development.

But I am really interested in what the minister has done, if anything. I don’t know whether I would have done anything as minister. But one would have thought that with this type of capital investment, this type of employment situation, you would have done everything possible to engender success.

I am really interested in knowing, having regard to what the government has said to us about modular development, what you would have done with Housing.

You talk about free land; there is a great deal of free land. I don’t think that you would have any difficulty changing Housing’s development policy connected with the HOME programme; or in saying let’s go ahead in our senior citizens’ programme, for example, under Community Social Services. The minister is right behind you. Why not some type of concept with utilization of modular development there? This is what I am interested in. What have you done, if anything?

If not, perhaps you can explain why not?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I will have to get my file and go through it point by point. I know for a fact that we are the contact point between various ministries of the government and the industry. We have discussed it with them, we have tried to find ways of being able to assist them in getting their entrée into some municipality.

The acceptance of the product, I think, has some part to play in it, and that’s a very personal opinion. If I read between the lines about why we are overstocked, the overstocking did not only commence in the last six months, it commenced some time ago -- but I shall ask my people to get the files so we can go over it with you.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am most interested in your personal opinion and I don’t in any way detract from that personal opinion. But I am really interested, before we finish tonight, in having some response as to what you have done, what your people feel about this concept of modular development on the part of Polysar, and why in effect they went down.

I would think, frankly, that it is part of the sickness in the housing industry. I think probably that’s the answer. If I had had that answer to begin with I probably would have accepted that. But I am really interested in knowing, when you start to rationalize about the lack of land availability -- because when you talk about that, that’s really tough to accept when I see some of the projects going on under the housing ministry now. Land availability can’t be it. When I see the projects going on under Community and Social Services, land availability can’t be it. It must be something very sick about the very concept. If it is, I am really interested in it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: One final remark before I get my files. That was one of the major reasons Polysar gave us for closing up. They didn’t go into receivership. They have not lost the knowledge or the expertise. The expertise is part of it.

Mr. Bullbrook: No. The government of Canada wouldn’t let it go into receivership.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Maybe not. There are a few other dollars involved in it as well.

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

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask the minister, under item 3 of this vote, about industrial development. Since your ministry has to become a partner to any development plans in the Province of Ontario, they wouldn’t go forward without some kind of input or some kind of consultation with your ministry. When the minister goes around the province saying: “My ministry, Industry and Tourism, works vigorously to make certain that Ontario continues its considerable contribution to the health of the Canadian economy and to the economic good of the province’s citizens”; I don’t know whether the minister saw the item on CBC news last night about the particular plight of the town of Armstrong.

This is something that has concerned those people and myself for over a year now, since the announcement made by the federal government to close out the radar base. Since your policy minister, the Hon. Mr. Grossman, has indicated there is very close co-ordination with all the ministries within his policy field to come up with solutions to that particular problem, what kind of input has your ministry had in coming up with solutions to the economic ills of the town of Armstrong? What kind of assistance are you prepared to provide for an entrepreneur who is willing to go in there and establish some kind of industry, preferably a wood-using industry, involving the resources that are there in such abundance within close proximity to the town of Armstrong? And what dialogue have you had with your colleagues on this matter?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, specifically relating to Armstrong, the ministry has been in with a number of its personnel to review the potential that is in Armstrong.

We’ve worked hand in hand with the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and others. We have gone into Armstrong and we’ve made inquiries regarding various types of industries we thought might have a potential to that community. The interest by the citizens themselves really did not prove that we were on the right course. We looked at the possibilities of converting some of the buildings into a motel or a housing unit, of a nature where people going to the north who wished to take part in hunting and fishing and things of that nature would have a place to stay.

All of the things that we touched on -- and I say this most sincerely to the hon. member -- just came back to us with a very poor economic potential. There was one we were working on with the Minister of Natural Resources -- and I think he hopes to make some announcement or statement relating to it in the relatively near future -- as to a co-operative position in the lumber industry that you, sir, have spoken to us about on more than one occasion. It appears that would likely be the most realistic application of the natural resources and manpower that exist in Armstrong at this time.

I very honestly say to the hon. member that if you have some suggestions or ideas as to what our ministry can do further we would welcome them. We’ve spent time, we’ve reviewed it with the people in that community, we have gone to Thunder Bay and discussed it with people in that part of the province to see if they had any input to it. Our field representatives have gone in on more than one occasion.

We’ve looked at the craft industry with some interest and some feeling that it could produce some very good jobs for the people in that area, and we have not met with the greatest acceptance by the people, relating to crafts. We know there are some difficulties in finding the right materials for the craft industry, but we think we might be able to overcome it.

I am anxiously waiting to see what the conclusion will be in the discussions with the Minister of Natural Resources and some of the people who have timber rights there at the moment.

Mr. Stokes: The obvious answer is to establish an industry based on resources that are already in place and that are going unused at the present time. Your ministry obviously must be privy to information that has been made available to the Minister of Natural Resources, where he’s had three alternatives sitting on his desk now for a month. All I’m saying to both this government and the federal government is that the consequences of doing nothing are just so severe that it’s almost repugnant to contemplate, because it’s costing, in social terms, over $750,000 a year right now and it’ll be well in excess of $1 million if you do nothing. You know what the degrading consequences are of a continued and perpetual existence based on welfare or some other form of social assistance.

Let’s assume it’s going to cost you $3 million to $5 million to give an economic base to Armstrong. I suggest to you that that’s much preferable to doing nothing and letting everybody in the community of Armstrong be a welfare statistic. The only thing they have to show for a lifetime of work is whatever equity they have in a very small and modest home -- the value of which will be negligible -- and it would cost them three or four times as much money to duplicate it if they were to relocate and be retrained for some other kind of work.

If we’re going to open up the north we’ve got to make a commitment that we are going to assist small communities such as Armstrong to survive and to grow and to prosper. If you’re going to open up the north, which is the new frontier where the future of Ontario lies, you must undertake to keep up the lines of transportation and the communications; and you need people there to do it. Armstrong is in a very strategic and a very vital area of the province.

If some of you think that I’m talking about something that’s up near the North Pole, just take a look at a map of northern Ontario. It’s much closer to the geographic centre of Ontario than Toronto is, or many of the other heavily populated areas. Just take a look at where Armstrong is. It’s on the main line of the Canadian National Railways, it’s in the heartland of our timber industry, it has tourist potential and it has mineral potential.

All we’re asking is that you give the kind of attention to the problems of the people residing in Armstrong that they deserve. It’s going to cost you anyway, so let’s do something positive rather than doing nothing and having to pay the social consequences later on.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, these estimates are a new low in the estimates in the last 12 years. You have $20 million worth of personnel in your department -- all key people -- and they must be embarrassed at the way these estimates are presented tonight.

Mr. Chairman: Are you speaking on 2002?

Mr. Sargent: I don’t know, Bill. What do you think I should speak on?

Mr. Chairman: I don’t think you are.

Mr. Sargent: I’m talking about the discrepancy of $1.3 million in this vote.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): It sounds like a stock market.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, the Ontario Research Foundation item of $2,630,000; what was it last year?

Mr. Chairman: With great respect to the hon. member, this is not under this vote at all.

Mr. Sargent: Oh, Bill, look on page R-51, in the second vote, under industry technology development. Sharpen up.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The comparable figure on the research last year -- that is, that relates to the $2,630,000 that we’re dealing with this year -- was $2,464,000.

Mr. Sargent: You are asking for $2,630,000?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Sargent: It was more last year.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, Mr. Chairman, it was about $130,000 or $140,000 different.

Mr. Sargent: When you start doing your estimates, does the Premier tell you he wants you to knock off so much of your estimates, or what happens? Are you given a free hand to set your own estimates?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Sargent were Premier and that was the way he wished to deal with the item, it would make ministers extremely happy.

Mr. Sargent: I don’t understand you.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the ministry, along with those commissions that report to it, submit their initial estimates many months in advance. It goes through a series of meetings with the resource policy field on policies and priorities in management and eventually comes out as a completed document. It should be obvious to the members of this House that my initial requests of government and the Treasurer (Mr. White) for supplying funds to the ministry is not the figure before you tonight. It was considerably higher.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Minister, I have had some discussion with your deputy on the closing down of the Eagle Machine plant in London. Would you elaborate on the reasons Eagle Machine closed down; why your ministry did not render assistance when they came to you asking for it; what happens to the unsecured loan of $500,000 that was given to Eagle Machine through your ministry; and what has happened to the employees working at this particular plant?

It is a situation very similar to Hall Lamp at Huron Park. What happens to unsecured loans made to various companies when they go bankrupt?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, we had long and interesting discussions with Eagle Machine Co. Ltd. of London, Ontario for some months. We have given them advice and guidance on their product. We gave them a $600,000 export support loan to allow them to export their equipment outside Canada.

It has become obvious in recent days that other financial institutions were asked to give them additional financial support. Within their terms of reference, the development corporation were not prepared to extend any further credit to Eagle Machine. There are several reasons for this. One is that the equipment they manufactured appears to have some shortcomings in its operation. Some of the equipment they sold and exported from Canada is still sitting at their dealers or at freight sheds in the countries of destination. A number of pieces of equipment they sold have since been returned to the London plant to be reworked in order to be usable for the operation they were originally designed for. The government, through its development corporation, may not get back any portion of the unsecured loan. But in most cases we have been able to secure a percentage for the development corporation’s treasury fund.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: Who are the principals of Eagle Machinery Co. Ltd.? Is one of the principals John Blunt, the same person as is principal in Homes Insulation, for whom you granted an exemption of $800,000 on the sale of Babcock and Wilcox?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I’ll have to get that information. I do not have that file with me.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s twice now. On a point of order, this is twice now.

We’re on the estimates, and I don’t expect an assiduous, specific evaluation of detail. But I say this to you: I just asked very important questions about the concept of modular housing in the Province of Ontario, a new enterprise in our province brought forth by the Ministry of Government Services, inculcated by Polysar Ltd., a development with the federal government in equity participation. We have to get the file, we’re going to get that file before this vote is over.

I want to know whether Blunt, with whom I was discussing his enterprises this afternoon, Homes Insulation, was a principal of Eagle Machinery. I want to know that and I think we’re entitled to know that. Does my colleague agree we’re entitled to know that?

Mr. Sargent: And if the minister doesn’t know, who does know?

Mr. Bullbrook: I believe he was a principal of Eagle Machinery. I believe he was the president of Homes Insulation, the same company. We’re dealing with $800,000 worth of tax exemptions. We’re now dealing with $600,000 worth of lost bans. I am really interested in knowing this.

Mr. Sargent: It’s the end of the pork barrel there.

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t know that; I don’t know.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): The member for Grey-Bruce should know.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Nipissing has the floor next.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): The minister hasn’t answered the question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I said I would secure the information.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, being the advocate of all our rights, as you are, in a very dispassionate fashion, do I understand we’ll get this before this vote is over?

Mr. Chairman: That was what the minister said.

Mr. Sargent: Yes, right.

Mr. Bullbrook: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Actually the member for Thunder Bay should have the floor.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: What is your point of order?

Mr. Sargent: My point of order is this, that my colleague asked the question: “Yes or no, do you know the man?” And the minister would not answer.

Mr. Bullbrook: No, he doesn’t.

Mr. Sargent: He doesn’t know the answer?

Mr. Stokes: He said he would get the information.

Mr. Chairman: He didn’t ask that question at all.

Mr. Sargent: My apologies.

Mr. Chairman: I am sure the member for Thunder Bay won’t mind yielding the floor to the member for Nipissing. We’re all happy to see him back in the Legislature taking part in the debate. I’m sure the member will yield the floor to him. The member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I just have a short question. It’s in regard to venture capital funding -- not within your ministry but outside venture capital funding -- which could well come under this vote or some other. I presume we might just as well do it here.

In the windup of the Throne Speech debate in 1972, the Premier charged the responsibility to your ministry to develop an investment capital information service. I would like to know just what has been done since that time. Since then, the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism has made some remarks in regard to this. I don’t know if you’ve read the reports or not, but it’s obvious that many people haven’t, and many people in government perhaps should read them because they do make fair reading. They do make some rather specific recommendations.

The committee said that on the basis of the observations they had made it was clear to the committee there was a critical need to develop an intermediary between businessmen who were in need of financing and potential sources of venture capital. That went along with the statement of the Premier in 1972; which was a direction, I thought, to your ministry. As far as we know, this intermediary setup has not been established nor has there been any effort on the part of your ministry to formulate some type of a policy by which the people who need venture capital and those who are offering venture capital can be brought together.

The committee recommended that priority be given to the development of an effective institutional process, designed on the one hand to inform those in need of financing about the potential sources of venture capital and to improve their ability in making attractive and effective presentations to these sources; and on the other hand to bring sources of venture financing into contact with those requiring it.

In other words, what we are trying to do is ask your ministry to do as they were directed to do by the Premier in 1972 and set up this type of organization within the ministry, whereby you would have a listing of those people with venture capital available; and you would have, on the other hand, an established bureaucracy, I suppose of civil servants who would assist those in need of venture capital in making application to those firms who have the venture capital available.

By letter of March 12, 1973, you yourself intervened in this matter and wrote to the committee on cultural and economic nationalism, indicating that at this time you didn’t believe you could follow the direction of the Premier because you didn’t have enough information available to you. You said that venture capital people don’t want to be known; they don’t want to have it made public that they have venture capital available.

Well I totally disagree with that because the people who have money to lend, whether it be venture capital or otherwise, do want it known to the sources who are looking for it, because no matter what you have for sale or to lend or for whatever it is, if nobody knows about it, you might as well hide it under the pillow -- of course, maybe some of this money is coming from under there, I don’t know.

On the other hand, people who are in a venture capital business want those people who are looking for venture capital to know where they are and how much they have available. So that part of your letter is just ridiculous.

You went on to say you were waiting for a report of a Prof. Russell Knight that was to be made available in July, 1973, and that you were going to depend on that report for the development of a programme within your ministry. That report should have been available a year and three months ago, according to your letter of March, 1973. Since that time, I have not heard of any movement within your ministry to set up such a body that would bring together the venture capital lender and those who are looking for that type of financing.

I wonder if the minister would comment on this and tell us when he is going to follow the direction from the Premier and when he is going to follow the recommendations of the report; and what happened to Prof. Knight’s report, which I have never seen.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, as to the venture capital question, we are in the process at this very time putting together some new financing programmes for the Ontario Development Corp. and its two sister corporations.

Mr. Sargent: Ah come on.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Just a moment, just a moment.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I am talking about private venture capital, not about what you’re trying to do within your ministry.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I will speak just for a moment on private venture capital because we have talked to the banks and we have talked to the other willing institutions; and one of the big problems we have with them is the interest factor they charge on venture capital loans.

You said a minute ago that I made the remark that venture capital firms really do not want to be known. In a great number of cases that is absolutely correct. They go out and try to seek for themselves, without being known publicly, operations or opportunities for their investment.

The member may mean that Roynat and a few of the others are venture capital loan companies, and I suppose they are; but at the interest rate they charge there are few people wanting venture capital at that price, because they also are entering into an area with some uncertainty. I am convinced that if venture capital and projects of that nature are to be beneficial to the province, then the Ontario Development Corp. has to design a much more effective programme to assist in this area.

You say the Premier instructed us -- that is correct. I reported to the Premier not so many weeks ago that we will be coming forward to policy field cabinet and Management Board with what we believe will be a very effective programme.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That is 28 months ago.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is very true. But in that period we have implemented a fair number of programmes. Each one we want to see on stream, and successfully.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Obviously, in spite of the instruction from the Premier -- and that’s what it amounted to for your ministry -- and the recommendations of Mr. Knight, which I haven’t seen but which I presume agreed with what the Premier had indicated and what Treasury and Economics were trying to do in their overall picture; plus the recommendations of the select committee; despite all that there still has not been any development of this nature within your ministry.

It’s coming now; but obviously it’s very hard to agree with you that people who have venture capital don’t want people to know who they are. They are in the business of lending money; and the people in the business of lending money, no matter what kind of money it is, like to know where their customers are; and the customers looking for this type of money like to know where the lenders are.

We are asking that your ministry bring the two together and help those people who are trying to find this type of money make the application to the venture capital people who have the money. We have no evidence to show this is what is going on.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, that is correct. That is one of the services of the industrial officers, the tourism officers and the loan corporation officers.

We know some of the venture capital programmes available across Ontario and in Canada. There are also a number of people from foreign lands that would like to get involved in venture capital. They come and put their names before us. They do not go out and bandy it about, but a government agency seems to be one agency they can use. Some banks will select venture capital companies to recommend you to if you are looking for that type of funds.

We do try to relate venture capital requests to a particular venture capital loan corporation we know is operating effectively and will likely give the applicant a fair shake. But if we are going to be effective in designing and developing better venture capital operations in this province, we are likely going to have to put more money into that area through the ODC.

Venture capital loans are not as simple a programme as some would like us to believe. When I first started discussing it with people it was like water rolling off a duck’s back, a very simple situation. As you get into it deeper with your finance people you find there are some areas you had better be very cautious about. It has taken us time. We have implemented two or three other new programmes in ODC. This is one we hope we will have in place before too many weeks pass.

Mr. R. S. Smith: There are venture capital people in this province who have come to us and indicated they have not had the support of government in finding places for their money. There are many small and medium-size businessmen in need of venture capital who can’t find it. They have come to your ministry and have not been able to get assistance.

If the government is going to be in the venture capital business it then has to start to take equity. Obviously a great number of ventures you are going to be called upon to go into are going to be rather, shall we say, shaky investments. You are going to get what is left over from private venture capital. Therefore the only reasonable return you could expect is if you take an equity position in the companies involved.

I would like the minister to indicate whether, in his venture capital setup under ODC, it is going to be the policy of the government to take equity positions in the companies in which they are going to invest -- particularly when there is going to be a large element of risk of the taxpayers’ money.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: This is just one of the many suggestions that have been proposed, Mr. Chairman. It could very well be that as we present our position to policy field, then to cabinet, it might be that the government would take an equity position. There has been no policy decision levied in that particular area but it is certainly being given consideration.

Mr. R. S. Smith: But certainly it is fundamental to the investment of what can be termed risk capital that you do take an equity position. Without that you are just taking the taxpayers’ money and fiddling it away in many instances. Although the return might be great for the private investor, the return for the taxpayer will be negligible, whether the thing is successful or not, unless you do take an equity position.

Mr. Stokes: One brief comment under this vote and then I am prepared to let it go.

You have $190,000 for services industries development this year where you had none last year; you had $166,000 for business development last year but nothing to replace it this year. It would be much easier for those charged with the responsibility of following these programmes if the minister would give us some kind of information as to the directions you are trying to take.

You thought last year that business development was $166,000, but this year you say it is not worth anything. You didn’t even think of service industry development last year, but this year you are asking for another $190,000. What is the rationale?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I am sure members of this House will recall a year ago when we were discussing estimates we touched on service industries and the fact that this ministry had not really concentrated to any extent in trying to support or advance service industries across Ontario. We indicated clearly at that time we were in the process of establishing a new division, or branch if you wish, that would zero in specifically on service industries. That is why we have the $190,000 requirement here.

As for business development, that has been transferred back into operations.

Mr. Chairman: Would it be agreeable to the members if vote 2002 carried at this time?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: May I make one comment to the member for Sarnia, if I may Mr. Chairman, on the two questions he raised? The questions the member raised both relate to ODC and I would suggest, sir, that we deal with those under the Ontario development vote that we will be coming to.

Mr. Sargent: You may not get to it.

Mr. Chairman: Would it be agreeable to the member for Sarnia if the minister did that? He wishes to comment specifically on two questions that were asked.

Mr. Bullbrook: No, I think what would be agreeable to me, since we have a time limitation -- and this is subject, of course, to the advice of my colleague from Kent who leads us in our responsibilities in the House -- I would think that we are prepared to pass onto any vote; but we want a significant note on Polysar and your responsibilities in connection with Polysar and the modular development.

I think secondly we want to have some discussion about the coincidental involvement, as I understand it, of Mr. Blunt with both the Babcock Wilcox situation and the Eagle Machinery situation. If you are agreeable to that, when you are able to respond to us, subject to my colleague’s direction to me, then we have no limitation on that debate; that is fine, Mr. Chairman, I have no reticence at all.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. Bullbrook: Do we have that understanding? We have that understanding; fine.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The part on limitation, sir, does not rest with the minister that is speaking at this moment. That is the House leader --

Mr. Bullbrook: No? Then the government has to have a House leader. We have a House leader and I say to you the government has to have a House leader.

Mr. Chairman: Order; order please.

Mr. Bullbrook: Well, sir, please; all right, fine.

Mr. Chairman: Just a minute. Would the minister undertake to get those answers to the two questions the member for Sarnia is asking? Before the estimates are over?

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much your consideration about government and opposition. I don’t want to be just restricted to getting the answers; and find myself, at 10:29, being given some response. I want to be able to respond to that.

What I am saying, sir, is that since there should be a House leader here on behalf of the government, that we have an understanding.

I yield to my colleague, the member for Kent, who leads the House on our behalf and who has instructed me to say that we are prepared to do that. If we have a meeting of the minds, that is fine, but I just don’t want the answer at 10:29 when I will not be able to respond to it.

Mr. Chairman: I don’t think the minister would give you an undertaking you would get an answer at 10:29.

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order then, sir, if I may, is there a House leader? Is there a government House leader?

Mr. Chairman: I don’t know if there is a House leader or not, but there is a chairman here and I am going to make the ruling as chairman, with the support of the House.

Mr. Bullbrook: All right. Mr. Chairman, further to my point of order, you ask me to indulge the House in permitting this vote to go by if necessary. I am so prepared if the minister will assure us that we have ample time to debate the questions that I brought up; and I say most charitably that he must have time to get the answers for us.

Mr. Chairman: That is right. That is what I asked the member in the first place -- would he be willing to pass vote 2002 subject to other speakers, if the minister provides the House with answers which can then be debated at that time? Okay?

Mr. Bullbrook: All right, sir.

Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Can the minister advise me what aid has been given to Levi Strauss?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, again we are dealing with an item that is under ODC.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I think we should wait for ODC altogether.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I would ask that question be deferred until we are on the ODC, so we will have the information for the member.

Mr. Sargent: We are not going to get to ODC, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I certainly hope we will.

Mr. Stokes: If we pass this one, we might.

Mr. Shulman: Has some specific aid been given to Levi Strauss under this particular vote, outside of ODC?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I know the point we are getting at is about another firm that is ceasing operations in the city of Toronto --

Mr. Shulman: Three other firms.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- which has indicated clearly about the application of funds coming in. We have provided no funds to Levi Strauss but I can tell you there are other arrangements through DREE where funds have been provided to them.

Mr. Shulman: This ministry has provided no provincial funds?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: My understanding is that the Ontario Development Corp. has not put any funds into it; there have been federal funds directed to it.

Mr. Shulman: But no provincial funds, you are saying?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is correct.

Mr. Shulman: That just isn’t correct.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa South.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): No, Ottawa East.

Mr. Chairman: East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, the member for Ottawa South is the minister; that little fellow there.

Mr. Sargent: He is getting littler all the time too.

Mr. Roy: No, Claude is a good fellow.

Mr. Chairman, what I want to discuss especially deals with business development pertaining particularly to the question of my riding. I understand that some municipal politicians from my riding have approached the minister about getting some assistance to develop the core of Vanier. As you know, there is an urban renewal plan going on there and of concern to him is the business aspect of the city centre.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure I am on the right vote here. As I look under the question of business development, I just wonder whether assistance is given by this ministry to, for instance municipalities; not only in the form of money but in the form of directives, information and this type of thing.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: In respect of money we are looking at some assistance programmes that will assist in infrastructure for municipally owned industrial parks. We have not, through my ministry, become directly involved in the capitalizing of municipal projects such as a stadium or civic centre. We are prepared and we have a lot of communities across the province advised as to what we believe are the essential services and the type of structure they should have in their community if they are to make the best possible use of it as a trade centre or as a recreational centre; and one which we hope would have some tourism advantages to it.

Mr. Roy: Well, my great concern and the point I want to put to the minister, is that I understood from some of the municipal politicians in Vanier they had discussed with you the question of the development of the core area of Vanier, including what sort of assistance was available from the government to help businesses to locate in Vanier. As I mentioned earlier, there is a major plan being prepared, for the development of the business section of Vanier, especially for the area with which the minister is familiar, the whole Montreal Rd. area.

Mr. Chairman, what is of great concern to me is that I have been advised that these people have approached you in relation to receiving certain assistance -- and I put this to the minister in a guarded sort of form -- and one of the responses that they have received from you is that things would go a lot smoother for Vanier and that particular area of my riding if they were in fact represented by a Tory.

Mr. Sargent: Shame, shame.

Mr. Roy: That is of concern to me --

Mr. Sargent: Did he say that?

Mr. Roy: That information has been given to me -- in confidence, of course, as emanating from you. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have heard this sort of thing in the last little while, especially in the Stormont by-election. We have long suspected that this sort of wheeling and dealing in the background was going on to some degree. We have heard your predecessor, the former Minister of Industry and Tourism, saying: “Well, Bill Davis is human. If you don’t elect a Tory here it’s going to be difficult in terms of grants for Cornwall.”

I had heard the story from certain municipal politicians that this kind of statement emanated from you; and I just want you, as the minister, to advise me that that is not a factor, that it is not a policy of your department to give added consideration to a particular area because it is represented by a member of any party, and certainly that favouritism is not shown because one is represented by a member of the Conservative Party.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, my riding touches on the border of Vanier, and I can assure the member for Ottawa East that at no time has any member of the municipal council in Vanier discussed with me the possibilities of our ministry participating in any programme involving a municipal structure or development in the core area. The mayor called me on one occasion, but it related to extra moneys for sewer development in his community. But at no time has the mayor or any member of his council ever asked for my opinion, the ministry’s opinion or our thoughts in a very general way as to the redevelopment of the central core area of Vanier with a municipal building or civic complex being there.

Mr. Roy: Well, I just want to be clear on that point. You are currently the only minister from Ottawa -- well, there is your colleague, the member for Carleton (Mr. Handleman), who is not well and has had this unfortunate problem, and we know what happened to Mr. Lawrence --

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): And this guy may stay that way for a long time as well.

An hon. member: Until Nov. 7.

Mr. Roy: You are the minister that the municipal politicians look to as being, let’s say, the door to Queen’s Park. It may well be they have approached you, but not in relation to one of your government programmes, and I just want to be assured by the minister that, whether it was in relation to the programme that I have mentioned or any other programme within your department, they are not advised that things would go smoother or better if they were represented by a Tory.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I repeat very clearly, Mr. Chairman, that no member of council in the city of Vanier, from the mayor down, has discussed any project with me --

Mr. Sargent: Did you say it?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I can assure you, sir, that if anyone approaches my ministry -- and I am sure there are many members of the opposition who have paid a visit to us to get certain projects under way in their communities -- we deal with them on an impartial basis, giving them all fair consideration as to the economic development of that community and what it will do for industry and tourism in a general way for the province.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: When you commented during the discussion regarding establishment of industrial parks and infrastructure for those parks, were you referring to the announcement I think the Treasurer made a few days ago about the industrial parks programme the government is endeavouring to bring about? Secondly, will this industrial parks programme be a part of the DREE agreement for northeastern Ontario? If so, has the federal government been approached on that basis for the DREE agreement in northeastern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, we are negotiating with DREE. We have been for some time relating to specific areas of the province. But as I travelled through the province over the last two summers and talked with municipal politicians about some of the drawbacks in their communities for acquiring new industries -- and the member for Thunder Bay has been with me in his constituency when the expression was made to us with a great deal of force -- we found the thing they are lacking is serviced industrial land immediately available for locating new industry.

Obviously, servicing the infrastructure for municipally owned industrial parks does not really take as high a priority in municipal budgeting as, let’s say, a swimming pool or a hockey rink or some of the more visible and tangible assets that serve the general public on a day-to-day basis.

It’s a very general statement and I’m not backing away from it, because in most cases that is exactly the position you will find them in. Realizing that, I think it is necessary that this government, through a special programme, provide funds for those municipalities where we believe it essential that we have serviced industrial lands ready so we can locate industry when it shows interest. I think that is pretty much the same programme the Treasurer spoke about here a few days ago. The two ministries have been putting their heads together, along with others, in trying to design the structure.

I have sent letters to many municipal leaders -- reeves, wardens, chairmen or mayors -- and asked them for their input from their municipal council as to how they see the infrastructure policy working in their community. I asked for suggestions and ideas, as I travelled during the summer, from the mayors we happened to meet with. Some of the information we are getting back should produce a very effective programme.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The specific question I asked which you avoided was: Have you discussed this matter with the DREE people from Ottawa? Obviously you are going to be looking for 50-50 agreement for the funds to establish these industrial parks. As far as I know, in my discussions with the DREE people in Ottawa, the Treasurer’s announcement came out of the blue -- they had not been forewarned, nor were they aware that you people were working on that type of agreement.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, we have had ongoing discussions with DREE relating to general policies, on infrastructure for industrial parks and other capital programmes.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I am asking you specifically about infrastructure for industrial parks.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Have you had discussions with --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, we have had discussions --

Mr. Stokes: Just on capital costs, though.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Well, infrastructure costs, if that is what you are referring to as capital costs. If you are referring to the capital costs of purchasing industrial land, that is not one of the areas we have been pursuing.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, the minister was in the House during the question period when my leader was asking the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) about the acquisition of some 10,000 acres in that member’s own riding. I recall you making some comment about that some time ago. Do you know what is going on there? Is it land that has been put together or expropriated, or assembled for an industrial park?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I obviously know of no expropriation from my travelling through that constituency. I am aware of the fact that somebody is taking options on a great deal of land in that community.

Mr. Roy: Do you know who it is?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have no idea. I repeat in this House, as I have on the outside to newspapers and so on, that my ministry has never been asked whether it would be a good location for an industrial development park or anything of that nature. I have absolutely no idea who is buying the land, for what purpose, or at what price.

Mr. Roy: Could you answer a couple of questions? Presently the land is zoned in what way? Is it farm, agricultural purposes or what? Secondly, you said your ministry has not been approached for any assistance regarding this assembly. Is it a good area for industrial development? Thirdly, have you undertaken any inquiry to determine what in fact is going on there?

Mr. Cassidy: And if not, why not?

Mr. Roy: Yes, that too.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have indicated clearly that both from a personal, a minister’s, and a ministry’s point of view we have not been asked for any information or input into the development. We have inquired through the various ministries of the government as to whether any one of our ministries should be acquiring it or having somebody acquire it, and we have been advised that that is not the case.

As to the other thing on zoning, I have no idea what the zoning currently is on the land.

Mr. Roy: Would it be a good industrial area or a good place to have an industrial complex?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That question, Mr. Chairman, obviously I’m not prepared to answer at this point. We have not gone down as a ministry to review the situation to see what potential it has, what the serviceability of the land is, and its proximity to other very important things for industrial development.

Mr. Roy: Does it not concern you as a minister? There seems to be some developing going on and nobody seems to know what is going on. We had the charade here this afternoon with the Minister of Housing. There seems to be some sort of nonchalant attitude about a large assembly that is going on with nobody really caring too much.

You always prided yourself as a government and as ministers of running the show around here and yet there is something that is going on. What’s the mystery behind the whole thing? There seems to be a lack of any initiative on the part of anyone even to investigate this situation. It makes one very cynical and very suspicious about the government approach to particular projects.

We’ve seen it happen before. You know what happened, for instance, in Marlborough. It had to be the newspapers and certain individuals who got involved in a situation before the government brought its mind to that problem about a company which was trying to circumvent the Planning Act.

Surely we should be looking at this type of situation before we have another situation like Marlborough, or, as my leader mentioned, Century City or whatever they might call it.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Or another royal commission.

Mr. Roy: Or another royal commission as my colleague said. What is wrong with you guys there?

Mr. Reilly: There’s nobody arguing with you. What are you stalling for?

Mr. Roy: I’m not stalling.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to direct a question to the minister about the way in which -- I’m changing the subject a bit; I’m going back to where we were before -- the funding of these industrial park expansions is going to be related to economic planning for the eastern part of the province. I’m taking that part in particular. I know that the minister’s last innovation before he left municipal politics was an industrial park which the city of Ottawa did, and he has brought this up to the provincial sphere. Will these industrial park expansions financed with provincial funds fit in with provincial planning, and, if so, how is that being done?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I haven’t commented on municipal industrial park expansion. I very carefully dealt with the field of infrastructure on municipally owned industrial lands that they presently own and are properly zoned for that purpose. We have not applied ourselves to getting into the expansion. If a municipality believes it needs extra industrial land owned by it, we are prepared as a ministry to sit down with it and review the necessary requirements. But, at the moment, and I have said this openly before and I repeat it, I have not given any indication to municipal leaders that this government is getting involved in the land acquisition or the capitalized cost thereof. We are interested in trying to serve industrial lands that they presently own and that are sitting idle.

Mr. Cassidy: Could the minister say, though, what will the government do for a municipality that doesn’t happen to own any industrial land? Are there not many major municipalities in the eastern region of the province that don’t happen to have industrial lands which are owned by the municipality but which would like to ensure the provision of more industrial land which is serviced?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I said very clearly that we are prepared to sit down and review with those municipalities their need for industrial land. I can honestly say that most municipalities have acquired industrial land under their ownership, but they have not gone the second step of servicing, and it really doesn’t prove to be much of an asset until it does have the services in the ground and it is ready for use.

There is a municipality, one of a fair size in fairly close proximity to Toronto, within 100 miles, which has said to us that it would like to get in some more industrial lands for the municipality but it is running into a problem with the township that is right adjacent to it. The land they are trying to purchase will be in the township and not within their municipality. We have clearly indicated to both the township and to the municipality that, through the services of the ministry and the knowledge that we have, we are prepared to sit and review it with them to see how we can, if it is necessary, bring it into the ownership of one or the other government.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister familiar with the problem at Smiths Falls, where the industrial land in the municipality adjoins land in the township which could be easily serviced but which obviously doesn’t belong to the municipality nor is it a part of the municipality, and where, for a lengthy period of time, the word from Queen’s Park was always not to annex the land but to extend services across town to some industrial land which was at the far and remote end?

Is the minister prepared to cut the knot on situations like that? That is one question. The second thing is, does the ministry intend to give grants or loans to municipalities that want to service privately owned land, or will this only be on publicly owned land?

The third question is, what would be the approximate interest rate on the loans that are given to municipalities to provide infrastructure for this industrial land?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, I am aware of the situation that developed in Smiths Falls, and I think if you go back and check the record you will find that this minister became a very active participant in trying to clear up the difficulties that were being experienced.

Mr. Cassidy: After the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) and I went there.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Long before you went there, so don’t worry about that one. Long before you went there, and we had it well under way. There is a situation --

Mr. Cassidy: They didn’t mention it when we talked to the mayor.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am not going to get dragged into that particular situation.

Mr. Cassidy: The mayor was in the process of leaving the Conservative Party over the problem.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It is obvious, Mr. Chairman, there was a difference of opinion between the Smiths Falls group, that is, the council of Smiths Falls, and the township council. It took some time to get the two of them to put their heads together to agree on how this should come about, and to show them very clearly the economic advantages of opening up this industrial land. Time did prove to be right and they did move with it, and I think it is going to be a very profitable move for Smiths Falls and the township both.

Referring to the second question, we are not in the grant business nor do we want to get back into it. We will be in the loan business and the rate of interest will be a position determined by cabinet and announced to this House in due course.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The minister says he is not in the grant business and yet a while ago he said he was discussing this matter with DREE. When you talk about DREE you are talking about grants for infrastructure. You may not be in the grant business as far as those municipalities that are not covered by the DREE 10-year agreement are concerned, but for eastern, northern, northwestern and northeastern Ontario, there is a 10-year agreement between yourselves and DREE, under which you can enter into specific agreements for infrastructure in this type of industrial park, where you will be in the grant business.

What I would like to know is, how far advanced are you in that type of agreement for the municipalities in northeastern Ontario? When can they expect to have replies to the submissions that many of them have made to you and the other ministries and to the government -- maybe not directly to you but to the government -- regarding the general agreement between DREE and yourselves, and what will be done?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the negotiations on the DREE agreement took place with the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs and, as you know, the signings of the agreements in Cornwall and Thunder Bay were both carried out by the Treasurer of the province and not by the Ministry of Industry and Tourism.

Mr. R. S. Smith: But you must have some idea.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We had an input. We were consulted on various steps along the way as to how we saw the programme being applied.

We in the Ministry of Industry and Tourism are not involved in that grant situation at all. That is truly 100 per cent the Treasurer’s responsibility. We become involved in this new programme in lending funds to municipalities. We are not going to bring back the grant situation into the ministry. If there are grants to be given it will come from Treasury and their agreement with DREE.

In answer to the second question, how soon might they expect a definite reply? That is one that I’m not able to answer. The Treasurer might be in a better position, but it takes time to get people down to signing agreements and agreeing on some of the terms. And not always are the province and the federal government of the same mind on how a subject should be developed and improved.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Okay, I’ll ask this question then: At what point, insofar as your input into that agreement is concerned, do you believe the agreements have progressed? In other words, your ministry has an input all along the way; as far as you know up to now, at what point are those agreements? Are they a long way off, are they six months off, are they a year off? You should know that because that’s part of your industrial strategy. And you can’t be forming much of an industrial strategy for northeastern Ontario if your input and that of the minister who sits beside you is not together.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, we’ve had our input and we’ve made our position clear with the Treasurer. He has gone to Ottawa to discuss it with DREE.

As to what position they’re at at this day, including their agreements, I could not tell you, other than to say that one of the reasons that we’re designing the municipal industrial park infrastructure programme is to take over in areas where a DREE agreement is not likely to come into being for some extended period of time. We think we must have an alternative available to municipalities so they can move now and not have to have everybody waiting until the province and the federal government conclude their agreements on the DREE programmes.

Mr. R. S. Smith: In other words, the industrial parks could be set up all over the province except in the areas where the DREE agreement applies where they’re needed the worst?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, not necessarily, Mr. Chairman. It could very well be that the municipality could see their position in not wishing to wait for DREE, because it’s going to be too long a period of time. And while they have a programme that appears to give them -- and we sincerely believe it will -- the requirements of putting their industrial land on the market serviced, they might want to take advantage of it.

I can only say that as far as interest rates are concerned, they will be in a nominal position that will not be overtaxing nor add significantly to the cost of putting industrial land available on the market in Ontario.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Might the minister not agree that the reason they’re not getting anywhere with DREE is because it’s never been presented to them?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, I wouldn’t, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: It’s okay, Mr. Chairman, on this vote. I’ll move that the vote be passed if there’s no further debate on it, with the proviso that the vote is $1.261 million in error. I’ll move that vote be passed. Let the record show that the estimates are wrong by $1.261 million.

Mr. Chairman: Under vote 2002?

Mr. Sargent: That’s right, sir.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the vote that’s being presented -- I take it the hon. member is referring to the $4,792,000, are you, sir?

Mr. Sargent: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That, sir, in the opinion of the ministry, is the appropriate figure being requested under vote 2002.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, may I respectfully say again, let the record show the estimates of 1973-1974 were $5,935,000 and you show them as $4,674,000 -- a discrepancy of $1.261 million. For the record let it stand. I move the vote be passed.

Mr. Chairman: Have you totalled the 1973-1974 estimates?

Mr. Sargent: Yes, we have, sir. I’ll show them to you.

Mr. Chairman: What do they total -- $4,674,000?

Mr. Sargent: The 1973-1974 estimates are $5,935,000.

Mr. Chairman: As per the book here?

Mr. Sargent: As per last year’s estimates.

Mr. Chairman: Well, the total here seems to agree with the figures that I have. I don’t know where you’re --

Mr. Sargent: I will show them to you. Do you want them down there?

Mr. Chairman: Can we have an explanation for the discrepancy?

Mr. Sargent: Did you just come into the House? We’ve been talking about this all night.

Mr. Chairman: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I have explained -- I guess, this is the third or fourth occasion in our votes tonight -- that in the reorganization there are great changes, and that it’s very seldom possible that with the reorganization votes can be exactly the same from one year to the next. I have indicated to the member that our budget last year was $64,502,000 and, if you add up all of the estimates shown under the column, “1973-1974 estimates,” you’ll find that at the end we’d $64,502,000. What we tried to do is relate last year’s votes, to the votes that we’re taking this year, to give some comparison, some help to the members to understand the budgeting programme.

Mr. Sargent: Ah, come on, you’re not helping us with it, you’re confusing us. The record shows you’re completely wrong by $1.261 million. Don’t be stupid! It is there in front of you, can’t you read?

Mr. Chairman: Well, we’re dealing with the 1974-1975 estimates, we’re not dealing with 1973-1974.

Mr. Sargent: I know we are! I just made it for the record so everybody can keep track of what is going on. Answer that now.

Mr. Chairman: All right. Any further discussion on vote 2002?

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, earlier in this vote I asked about Levi Strauss and the minister got up and said no Ontario money was given to Levi Strauss. Does he still stand by that?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, that is information that the people in the ODC gave to me; that’s correct.

Mr. Shulman: What about the $100,000 you gave them a year and a half ago? The cheque was made out to their subsidiary in Brantford, Great West Garments. What do you say about that?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Just a moment, are we dealing with one company or are we dealing with several?

Mr. Shulman: One company, Levi Strauss.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: And you are talking about --

Mr. Shulman: I am talking about their wholly owned subsidiary, Great West Garments. What difference does it make who you make the cheque out to?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, with great respect to this House, there are many corporate structures across this province and if you’re naming one, you had better get the right one.

Mr. Shulman: Well, I am getting the right one. I am talking about Levi Strauss. How much money have you given them and how many people in Ontario have you put out of work as a result of giving them the money? That’s what I want to know!

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, again we’re getting into a specific field and I will get the file. I could say to the House very clearly, that while there are some people complaining about the lack of funds being given to them, or that we help competition in this province, clearly and distinctly there is a manpower shortage in the very industry that we’re complaining about.

Money was given to certain companies in the garment industry to come in here. It was given to them not only by this province but by the federal government as well, through their DREE programme. It was given for one clear reason. The very companies were importing large volumes of garments into Canada and this was one way of trying to curtail that and put the manufacturing of those garments that were being consumed in this province here with the people of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Shulman: Well, then, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question? Is he aware of how many people he has put out of work, or his government has put out of work, people who are working for Canadian companies, as a result of the moneys which he has given to Levi Strauss and to H. D. Lee? I know of some $600,000 given; I also know of some 200 jobs that have been lost. I know of one company that is closing down, another two that are on the verge of closing down, and when I asked the minister earlier about Levi Strauss, he said it was all federal money. Sure, place the blame in Ottawa.

Do you realize what you’re doing? Do you also realize that you are a joke at Levi Strauss headquarters? Do you know that they took part of that money and sent it to Hong Kong to set up a factory there? And that at the same time, by some coincidence, they set up a factory in Mexico? And that in Mexico they’re making these very pants -- what do you call them? -- Levis, at a price of -- I’ve got the price here, right out of their records, just a minute. They cost $4.25 down in Mexico City. They’re brought up here, the Levi Strauss label is put on them, and they’re sold here along with the ones manufactured right here in Ontario, and sold for $16.95.

The very thing you said you’re trying to clear up, you’ve actually succeeded in giving them -- a legitimate way of passing out imports as Canadian made. At the same time, Hamilton Carhartt -- I may be pronouncing it wrong; Hamilton Carhartt, are closing down on Dec. 31; a Canadian company that made exactly the same thing. Ben Otis is being forced to lay men off at this very moment because of your grants and you get up here and say you don’t know anything about it because it’s a different name.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I will answer the question in full and I will draw to the member’s attention that Levi Strauss has never received a dollar from the ODC.

Mr. Shulman: Oh, that just isn’t true.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: They have received no funds from ODC, but were awarded a grant --

Mr. Shulman: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- from DREE of $867,000 for a plant in Cornwall in September of 1972.

Mr. Shulman: What about the one in Brantford?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Great Western Garment Co. --

Mr. Shulman: Right.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- Eastern Ltd. received a performance loan of $100,000 from the government of Ontario in 1972 to expand its plant in Brantford.

Mr. Shulman: Did you forget about that one?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The government was a major factor in the decision to expand the Brantford plant rather than going to Winnipeg or Edmonton, and I am sure the member realizes that’s where the textile industry really and the garment industry have a real base.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Where?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Winnipeg and Montreal both.

Mr. Lewis: You said Winnipeg and Edmonton.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I didn’t say Edmonton, I said that there were --

Mr. Lewis: I had heard it was Edmonton.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the leader of the NDP had ever been in Edmonton he would see that Great Western Garment does have a rather substantial holding in that community.

Mr. Lewis: The base of the textile industry is not in Edmonton. It is in Winnipeg as a matter of fact.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I wouldn’t agree with you there.

Mr. Ferrier: It is in Montreal.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Both Winnipeg and Montreal.

Mr. Shulman: In exactly the same manner is the minister suggesting that because of his $100,000 grant they didn’t proceed to expand in Winnipeg and Edmonton?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am saying, Mr. Chairman, very clearly that it was an inducement to get them to expand right here in the Province of Ontario and provide employment for people in the city of Brantford.

Mr. Shulman: And what about the $500,000 that you gave to H. D. Lee to do the same thing in the same field? Does it have the same explanation?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, and I can say to the member I was in the H. D. Lee plant in Napanee where we have an investment and also in the plant that will be going into North Bay. It very clearly indicates to the members that neither one of H. D. Lee’s plants would be able to produce sufficient volume of goods to meet the demands that are made upon them.

Mr. Shulman: If there are so many demands being made upon them, can the minister explain why the Canadian companies that are producing exactly the same thing are being forced to shut down this month?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That would be far beyond my ability to understand, sir, other than they have not been as aggressive. They have not been as aggressive to go down --

Mr. Shulman: Nor have they received any grants.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: You know, the fact is that most of them receive loans from the government and if they wish to make an application to secure financing through the government to expand their operations in areas where we think it is advantageous to the economic development of Ontario, we would be pleased to review them and see what the possibilities are.

This is why we went into North Bay. There is a labour force there than can be used in this particular plan, so it was to our advantage, as far as we are concerned, to have that type of plant located in North Bay.

Mr. Shulman: Is the minister aware of how many jobs have been produced with your $500,000 for H. D. Lee in Napanee?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes. In Napanee we have a total of approximately 160 jobs and they will also be going on stream this year with an additional 30 machine operators, which will increase the staff by 90 more people.

Mr. Shulman: Is the minister aware that in putting those 250 people to work at H. D. Lee, he simultaneously put 400 people out of work at the other companies -- the Canadian companies?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the situation of a company here in Toronto that is anticipating closing down, for reasons best known to itself, is that it will not be in the range of 400 people involved, nor even half of that.

Mr. Shulman: Obviously, the minister isn’t aware there is more than one company involved. Are you talking about Ben Otis or about Sinclair’s company or about Hamilton Carhartt? Which one are you talking about?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Shulman: Which company are you referring to?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am referring to Hamilton Carhartt.

Mr. Shulman: Haven’t you ever heard of Ben Otis?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It hasn’t come to our ministry’s attention.

Mr. Shulman: Oh, my goodness. Well, Mr. Otis himself has been writing letters to your ministry. Have you not received any of them?

Mr. Givens: He hasn’t given them any Otis.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The only thing I can add to that, Mr. Chairman, is it has not come to my --

Mr. Shulman: Otis Star Ltd.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Shulman: Otis Star Ltd.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It has not come to my attention, sir.

Mr. Shulman: May I suggest to the minister that these things should come to his attention and that before he starts giving our money to American corporations to come in here to put our people out of business and ruin our Canadian corporations, he should give a little more attention to what he is doing, because this is a damned scandal. You don’t know a thing about it.

An hon. member: Shame, shame.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let me assure the House, Mr. Chairman, that my ministry people, before they start making decisions on loan applications, make themselves aware of the situation in the province, make themselves aware of what is being imported into this country, and what can be replaced by Canadian or Ontario manufacturing if government affords them some assistance. I take no responsibility for Ontario companies that do not want to get up off the seat of their pants and try to move forward into expanding their operations.

Mr. Lewis: Boy, that is some argument.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We do recognize very aggressive companies, not all of them are by any stretch of the imagination foreign companies. But I can tell you what the Lee company has been able to do in Napanee has certainly helped the economic position of that community and I can assure the members that the Lee plant that will go into North Bay with a federal government grant will stimulate real employment in that community as well.

Mr. Shulman: Can the minister tell me by what coincidence it is that these grants all happen to go to American corporations and that none of the Canadian companies in that particular field has received any?

Mr. Turner: They never applied for them.

Mr. Lewis: They are not aggressive enough. Canadian companies lack aggression.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: While the leader of the NDP may find it easy to make a very casual statement, I referred to some companies, and not in a general context at all --

Mr. Lewis: Well, I think your statement is preposterous that Canadian companies aren’t aggressive --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I don’t intend to get involved in that debate. I made a very general statement related to one or two companies.

Mr. Lewis: It’s a nonsense statement to say that Canadian companies aren’t aggressive.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: May I reply to the member for High Park that I have been advised that Mr. Otis has been in touch with us --

Mr. Shulman: Why didn’t you know about it? Why don’t you get your message?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s right.

Mr. Shulman: He pleaded with you to save the industry.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Well, if he pleaded with me, his plea mustn’t have been very loud, very long or very serious.

Mr. Shulman: He never got through to you.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: But, as I said, it’s obvious that the ministry people have arranged to visit Mr. Otis to discuss his problem.

Mr. Shulman: Well, that is a great help after the event. The company is going to the wall and you are arranging a visit -- now that you have given money to people to put him out of business.

Why in the world -- the simplest question of all -- why in the world did you let Levi Strauss make such fools of you? Why did you let them continue to import all this material from Mexico and Hong Kong to sell it here? Why didn’t you at least make the simple requirement, if you are going to give them all that money, that they sell in Canada only Canadian-made goods? Answer me that simple question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I think if the member would review his remarks, he will come to the understanding that the importing of goods is not controlled by this government.

Mr. Shulman: But the giving of money surely is.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: You know, I am amazed. The member sits there talking about imports, and what we were trying to divert was the importing of goods to this country for sale to our Ontario customers.

Mr. Lewis: But you failed.

Mr. Shulman: They produce more now than before.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: They are not even producing enough to meet market demands. If that’s the case, I say to the member, then maybe one or two other people should be out trying to hustle the market to see that their products find a market acceptance.

Mr. Lewis: “Hustle the market.” Boy, are you the entrepreneur!

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, I am -- and I am proud of the fact.

Mr. Chairman: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Otis has not made an application for any assistance from the government.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I will try again. Is the minister aware that, as a result of his policies, the percentage of this type of garment, Levi’s, coming into the country now is higher and that the percentage being sold in Ontario that is foreign-made is higher than before he gave this money to these American corporations?

Mr. Yakabuski: Everybody wears them. That’s why.

Mr. Shulman: The reasons are, first of all, that the Canadian corporations have been forced out of the business and, secondly, that your American corporations have used your money to bring in more imports, both from Mexico and from Hong Kong. Whatever your intentions, the results of your policy have been to produce exactly the opposite of what you wanted to do. We have a higher percentage of imports now and we have lost these Canadian corporations.

Mr. Turner: If that’s true, why didn’t your friend compete?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Shulman: Just give me one more moment. There’s an interjection from the member for Peterborough. He asked why my friend -- I have never met the man --

Mr. Turner: Well, whoever --

Mr. Shulman: He has asked, “Why did Otis and the other Canadians not compete?” I will tell you why he doesn’t compete: He can’t compete. He has to pay Canadian wages, and Levi Strauss pays Mexican wages and Hong Kong wages. Levi Strauss in Brantford pays Canadian wages to a small percentage of their people. Then they bring in the Mexican stuff and the Hong Kong stuff that looks exactly the same, but it costs a quarter as much.

Of course the Canadians can’t compete. How can they compete? We have minimum wages here. There’s no such minimum wage in Hong Kong. You have driven them out of business. That’s why they can’t compete.

Mr. Turner: There is no difference in the price on the marketplace, though.

Mr. Shulman: Of course there isn’t.

Well, let me try again, Mr. Chairman. Levi Strauss has set up factories in Mexico City and in Hong Kong. There they are able to produce Levi’s at a net cost to them, after paying duty when they are imported here, of $4.25. Those very same things sell in the stores for about $16.95. That’s why the Canadian manufacturers can’t compete. That’s why they are going out of business. You played a part in it. What’s worse, you didn’t know anything about it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I go back to the point about the entry of goods from foreign countries. It’s a subject that is being debated hotly right now between my ministry and Mr. Gillespie in Ottawa and the textile and garment industries because they are all of the opinion that we are reducing our position by the reduction of tariffs.

These companies that are producing jeans and other types of garments here in Ontario are paying Ontario wages to these operators. But their importations --

Mr. Shulman: But only with the --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let me finish. Obviously, if these manufacturers were not located in the Province of Ontario or in Canada, there would even be a greater volume of goods coming in from foreign lands -- a greater volume.

Mr. Lewis: No, that doesn’t follow.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Well, maybe two and two doesn’t make four to the NDP, but it surely does to me.

Mr. Lewis: No, it doesn’t. The money that you gave them is driving these companies out of business.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: So obviously, Mr. Chairman, we have built these Canadian plants, these operations through DREE funds -- and in one case through a $100,000 performance loan from the ODC --

Mr. Shulman: And in another case it was a $500,000 loan.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That was not from us, sir, if you check your figures.

Mr. Shulman: H. D. Lee was funded out of provincial money. Of course it was your money.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Well, I have some 1,500 applications and it’s a little difficult. It’s like being a bank manager and trying to know every deposit you have on your account.

Mr. Shulman: Then just ask.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The minister has the floor.

Mr. Shulman: They have the information --

Mrs. Campbell: That’s the difference.

Mr. Shulman: -- but he doesn’t.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): I believe you are in a quandary.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I say to you that in our opinion the investment in these plants, both federally and provincially, has been to the economic advantage of the province and that we have kept down whatever --

Mr. Bullbrook: That doesn’t answer the question.

Mr. Lewis: What are you doing?

Mr. Bullbrook: What breed is that? Don’t give us platitudes, please.

Mr. Lewis: Can I ask the minister something on this matter?

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

Mr. Lewis: One of the things which interested me is the way you continually denied the Levi Strauss relationship, trying to make a virtue out of the fact that no money has gone to Levi Strauss, despite the fact that the company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Levi Strauss. That kind of distinction is a debating point, it’s not a truth. The money, in itself, went to Levi Strauss; whether it goes to a wholly-owned subsidiary or not is irrelevant.

What about what the member for High Park says? I would have thought it would spawn in you some concern. If it is true that a portion of the performance loan you gave in good faith to a Brantford firm went to facilitate the expansion of facilities in Hong Kong and Mexico, the consequence of which is to encourage imports to Canada and then to Ontario, the consequence of that being the Canadian plants go out of business, then what is the point of giving the performance loans?

The trade-off makes no sense. It may secure some operators in Brantford. It obviously throws on to the unemployment lines some people who were working -- a great number of people who were working in other parts of Ontario.

Now it may be that you can’t show it -- although I would like to see an investigation of it. I think that your ministry should look into it, because when you are dealing with Levi Strauss you are dealing with a very sophisticated multinational corporation. It is entirely possible that the money that goes to Brantford as a performance loan facilitates or covers their expansions elsewhere to import into Canada. And that is something worth looking at, not worth being so defensive about it, so belligerent about it.

A member of the Legislature has raised something which is a very serious matter. It has harassed the textile industry for a long time. We haven’t raised H. D. Lee for the first time in the House tonight. We have had discussions about H. D. Lee before. The $500,000 forgivable loan to H. D. Lee didn’t occur last month. And the implication about the work force in Ontario has been something that has worried a great many of people for a considerable period of time.

So when you have accumulated evidence and the kind of information that is being given by the member for High Park, and the problem at the Hamilton firm and the Toronto firms, then surely the answer of the minister is “Okay, I won’t accept the facts as you give them.” You can be partisan to that extent about it. But say: “I want to check into it. I want to take a look at the consequences. I would like to have Mr. Etchen and others find out something about the Hong Kong and Mexican operation and see if I can trace the imports.”

Let me tell you, you can. You can by getting in touch with Gillespie. And let’s understand whether the performance loan we are giving this company may perversely, without your knowledge and without your intention, be driving Canadian companies out of business.

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. Lewis: That kind of thing is worth looking into. It’s not something one dismisses as though, as a Tory, you have to shoot down everything that comes from the opposition side of the House with reflex action.

The point that is being raised is fundamental, the kind of point we’ve been raising about the forgivable loan programme generally, and in its own way the kind of point that was being raised by the member for Sarnia when he talked about the forgiveness of the tax. It’s all part of the same pattern, this kind of pock-marked tendency to give performance loans, now remission of the tax -- the old Stanley Randall programme -- allegedly to expand job opportunity in Ontario. Peculiarly enough, we never know at the end of five years whether or not the number of jobs have been expanded and we’re never able to tell along the way whether we’ve done real damage to Canadian companies in the process. It’s all part of the same package and it’s worth looking into.

One of the nice things about the textile industry is that it is an identifiable industry. There’s been so much work done on textiles that you can, in fact, follow the process through and come up with some analysis. I think that the questions raised by the member for High Park really deserve some kind of consideration by the ministry. It would be worth taking a look at it. It would make some sense.

Mr. Shulman: As a postscript to this, if I may just give one line, the minister might find it interesting to read this month’s issue of Men’s Wear magazine because in it there’s a beautiful picture of Fern Guindon at Levi Strauss’ new plant, shaking hands and congratulating him and then thanking him for the great help from the Ontario government which this minister apparently wasn’t aware of.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I say to the leader of the NDP, with regard to the suggestions he makes relating to $100,000 or whatever amount of performance loan happens to be involved, that we don’t deny that we can look into the situation, but the facts that we have before us clearly indicate that at the time the performance loan was given it was for plant development and expansion here in Ontario. Where it relates, as you say, to the Hong Kong or the Mexican operation or somewhere else in the world, there are facts and figures that may be somewhat difficult to follow, and in consulting with Mr. Etchen we’re prepared to look at the situation very clearly.

On the other hand may I only add one other remark, that in this very garment industry that we’re speaking of -- the casual wear industry -- the requirements in the marketplace are greater than the production centres that we have in Ontario or Canada.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on vote 2002?

Vote 2002 agreed to.

Mr. Bullbrook: Carried, subject to the understandings we have, right?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, that’s correct.

Vote 2003, the trade development programme; item 1, programme administration.

On vote 2003:

Mr. Stokes: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Lewis: I will just take a second here, on a point of order. The same thing happened last night with the Social Development secretariat, where there were a number of questions remaining to be answered, particularly those put by the member for Nipissing. When the time had come to an end at 10:30 and the vote didn’t pass, the House leader (Mr. Winkler) said: “Discuss the recall of these estimates with your House leader.” Maybe it wasn’t the House leader who said it.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Yes, it was the House leader.

Mr. Lewis: It was the House leader. That’s called the old squeeze play. It really says that you sit down and you discuss it with the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), the House leader of the Liberal Party, to see where we will subtract time from another estimate to which time has been committed.

I feel that we may never get back to these estimates again. If we don’t get the answers from the minister tonight at some point we may never get back to them, because somewhere along the way they’ll be tacked on and on to the end and it will just run out of time in terms of the estimates in this House. It’s the easiest thing to avoid it. I would have thought there should be some guarantee that by 10:20 or something the information is in the hands of the minister and he provides it to the members. We’ll never get back to it.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Chairman, I’d like to comment on what the leader of the NDP has said. My reference was no more to the House leader of the Liberal Party than it was to his own House leader. We have accepted a proposal that was brought to us by those two House leaders -- not by myself -- and I’ve stuck to that very, very religiously.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is quite right.

Mr. R. S. Smith: On the point of order.

Mr. Lewis: On the point, of course the minister has stuck to it but none of us realized that ministers would not have fairly elementary material at hand. The questions asked by the member for Sarnia should not require the minister running back to his offices to get the dope. That kind of thing should be right at hand.

Mr. Stokes: They’re all right here.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, all the dope is right here.

Mr. Chairman: Shall we continue with the estimates on vote 2003?

Mr. Sargent: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that we are not going to finish these votes tonight, I think we should have an undertaking from the House leader that these questions will be answered prior to the time limit tonight. If it is 11 o’clock, we should have them before that, with no limit on the debate. So what are we going to do?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: There is no limit to the debate.

Mr. Lewis: They’ll cut it off Health. That is what they will do. He has got the answers now. Why doesn’t he give them to us?

Mr. Chairman: Well, we still have six votes to go, and I doubt very much that we will complete them tonight or even tomorrow night.

Mr. Sargent: But we only have five hours and we are in the fourth hour now.

Mr. Chairman: Well, perhaps if we did less talking, we could get the results tomorrow.

Mr. Sargent: Now, don’t be smart.

Mr. Chairman: I am not trying to be smart.

Mr. Bullbrook: I rise on a point of order. It really is an astounding consequence that the Chairman would say that if we did less talking, we would get more done. By gosh, if democracy operates that way, we are in real trouble.

Mr. Chairman: You liked that, did you?

Mr. Bullbrook: Well, I expected it; let me tell you I expected it.

Mr. Chairman: Well, coming from -- I won’t say anything. The hon. member for --

Mr. Lewis: You had better not say anything. You are sitting in the chair, you know.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, sir.

Mr. Lewis: You may be --

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay. Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: You may be the guru of grunts when you are up in that comer, but when you are in the chair you hold your tongue.

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

Mr. Bullbrook: On what vote, please?

Mr. Chairman: On vote 2003, trade development programme.

Mr. Bullbrook: All right. On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I want to have an understanding because I am very much interested in this. I am interested in the response of the minister. My understanding of what the Chairman said was this: that the minister didn’t have the information available for me --

Mr. Chairman: Right.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- that he would give me that information before the debate was finished, as far as time sequence was concerned; that we would then have the liberty of debating that information without stricture.

Mr. Chairman: Exactly.

Mr. Bullbrook: That is my understanding -- I hope.

Mr. Chairman: I think that is correct.

Mr. Sargent: Well, on another point of order, Mr. Chairman, where do we stand at this point?

Mr. Bullbrook: We have that.

Mr. Chairman: You have that commitment.

Mr. Sargent: At what time are we going to close off?

Mr. Bullbrook: When we finish debating it.

Mr. Stokes: On vote 2003, I would like to risk the minister to what extent he feels that his trade missions are successful. I am referring to the delegations -- and I get news of one a day, sometimes two a day -- of people going hither and yon to all parts of the globe, trying to interest foreign companies in purchasing our exports and to increase our technical knowledge of world markets.

It seems to me that we are spending quite a large sum of money to send people on these so-called trade missions. What are the tangible results, if any, since this policy has been in effect for a number of years now? What is our trade position in 1973, say, compared with three or four years ago? Can you see that we are getting some tangible benefit from these dollars that we are spending?

The second question I want to ask is, how do you determine the makeup of the mission? What companies are likely to be invited to go along? And why has there been only a very limited number of entrepreneurs on these missions from northern Ontario, as opposed to southern Ontario? The numbers from northern Ontario are practically negligible and while our potential in northern Ontario is somewhat limited, we do have some key industries. We have, for instance, the shipbuilding yards in Thunder Bay. We have Hawker Siddeley, which makes heavy equipment for forest harvesting. We have buses; we have the ability to make transportation vehicles of a number of types and varieties. Surely you could assist those few industries in northern Ontario to expand their business chances outside of our borders. Can you elaborate on the success of the programme in relation to previous years?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, trade missions were implemented some number of years ago and they produced some very valuable results for those industries that participated. I’m going to preface my remarks by saying that I’m never that impressed, Mr. Member, when people come back and tell me that they got an order for $1 million for the goods on a particular trip when they were there. Quite often if you talk to businessmen who are in long-range planning and development they’ll tell you that it takes a period of time to develop good agents and good representatives in foreign lands. If they happen to return with an order today for X dollars it’s more by good luck than it is by good management, because it’s over a period of time that they really develop strong ties with a foreign country.

We have indicated to you that in the current year, from a trade mission that went out in January, for example, which was known as Trade Mission 242, the estimated first-year sales will be in the range of $1,365,000. Then we had others that went to: Central America, producing orders in the range of $300,000; Los Angeles, USA, for $1.5 million; Australia and New Zealand, $1,655,000; South America, $370,000; Frankfurt, $1 million; Nigeria and Ghana, producing $1.4 million -- close to $2 million in their interpretation; another in Southeast Asia for $1,250,000. It indicates very clearly that there has been a substantial sales potential in the range of about $12 million in the first year of sales as a result of our trade missions. I might say that this accounts for 33 missions into 63 countries with 234 members or parties participating.

I might say, Mr. Member, if I can just go back for half a minute, that the statistical information on the trade missions in 1974 since June 9 has not been tabulated and, of course, there are missions away at this very moment, so that figure takes us up to approximately two-thirds of the year with better than $12 million.

Last year, for example, there were 29 missions in 44 countries with 219 members, producing first-year sales of approximately $16 million.

It might be interesting to look at the fact that of the 263 missions that we have made so far as a government, with 2,371 participants, the sales volume to date, according to the statistical information that we continue to gather from them, is $340 million.

It would be further indicated from this programme that while they indicate their initial sales to us, we have a three-year programme that we follow up with them on an annual basis to see how they’re developing, whether new markets are opening, and what suggestions or advice they would have for us that could better enable us to produce some results not only for them but for other companies in the Province of Ontario.

You asked how we come to the determination whether A, B or C company should go or what products we should take to that market. We have people both in the federal government and within our own ministry who will do a product survey to see what are the essential commodities, expertise, large industrial equipment or whatever it happens to be that is needed in that marketplace.

As an example, a few months ago, when I had the opportunity of going to Brazil and to two or three of the countries in that part of the world, I became very much aware of the fact that they weren’t really looking for what we think of as being consumer products but were looking for items with a very high technology and sophistication for the lumbering industry, the mining industry and the electrical producing industry, where we do have a fair amount of expertise and some very selective equipment made in this province. As a result, the next mission we take into that part of the world will be zeroing in on that market opportunity for our manufacturers.

We do know the products.

Once a year we ask manufacturers in this province would they be interested in going to a foreign land to look for an export operation and, if they are, in what countries do they believe there might be some product acceptance. Some of them secure this information through trade associations they belong to and know that there could be a potential in some part of the world. If they say they would like to go but they have no idea where the market is, then we get a complete description of their product and we try to relate it to the market position in whatever country we are going to. If there is a degree of what we believe is acceptance for the product, an invitation will be extended to that particular manufacturer.

They all submit cards or their application once a year. They update them to tell us whether they have got new product lines that could be of some value in the export market. Specifically related to transportation vehicles, we look at the components, rather than the completed units, because obviously in most countries today they have the protectionist clause whereby vehicles are stamped out or through some special agreements brought in from one of their allied countries. The component factor is where we can really make some inroads. I think of Venezuela where there is greater potential for us today than there has been in the past because of some auto pact agreement they are putting together and of the way they are unifying their automobile industry.

That is the way we go about the missions. We think they are profitable. Unfortunately, in the current year we have had to reduce our missions from the 42 originally projected down to 38 because of the rapid increase in air fares. As you know, we supply the participants with economy return air fare to the particular country that they are going to. All other expenses are at their own company’s expense. As a result of the increased costs of air fares and so on, we had to cut back our missions by four in the current year.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on vote 2003?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: Again for the record, this estimate is $1.4 million wrong in its tabulation. I say that for the record again. It is a consistency of sloppiness and doctoring of the books, and I say that for the record. These figures of $340 million in the terms of the 263 missions you are talking about, usually remind me of Amos and Andy, $50 million, $60 million. Who is to know whether there is any truth in these figures or not?

I recall when Stan Randall was the minister in charge of this department. At one time, we questioned the facts as they were and at that time they didn’t add up. We have to take your word for it. I suggest to you that a lot of these figures you are giving us are just guesstimations. In the main, you have the ordinary taxpayer of Ontario paying the freight for these junkets abroad, and from where I stand I think we have had too much of it.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on vote 2003?

Vote 2003 agreed to.

On vote 2004.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Ferrier: I won’t be long. I’d like to take a long time but I know I haven’t got the time. The Northern Resources Exhibition Centre had a study carried out for it by Raymond Moriyama, architects and planners of Toronto. They came to this conclusion about the project:

“This project has been a learning experience for our team. During the course of our work we gradually came to realize that what we were talking about was a new kind of institution for Ontario, perhaps for Canada, one that could help to revitalize an entire region. Others may wish to copy this model, but they will never be able to duplicate it. With these buildings, northeastern Ontario has something unique in the world.”

They are talking about the Hollinger Mines property in Timmins and some of the buildings there. One of the things is that the city council has disposed of a couple of the buildings, which was an awfully short-sighted move on their behalf. I hope maybe we will be able to get them back.

Could the minister say how seriously he takes this proposal by Moriyama? I think it has got tremendous potential to help that whole region, as he says, in providing a tourist attraction and providing a service for the community with the economic spin-off and all the rest of it. How serious are you about going ahead with this? Will you get behind this idea of the chamber of commerce which has, I think, really done a splendid job in giving leadership here and getting the involvement of your ministry and other ministries. Are you prepared to seriously look at this and put some money into it and help our region develop in a broader way than has been possible heretofore?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, to the member, I have indicated to the mayor of Timmins, and to his chamber of commerce, and to other interested people who have been working on this particular project for a year or better, that we were very serious in trying to give them a hand in bringing it to reality. As you know, the report from which you are reading is a draft report. The final one will not be in our possession for approximately two weeks. I have indicated again to the mayor of Timmins that we are anxiously awaiting the report, because we think there is a great possibility that they could add a new stimulus to that part of the province.

I might say to you that we do not look at it going 100 per cent provincial. We would like to think that our friends in Ottawa, who are interested in developing new tourist attractions and creating the need for people to stay in a community for a lengthy period of time, will become participants in the programme. Nor would I want you to go away with the idea that the municipality should not have some responsibility in putting up some of the financing required for it.

The report indicates, I think, if you read through it, that we could be looking at something in the range of $9 million by the time it comes to completion. I offer it to the member that my interests are to see that Timmins develops a very important part of the tourist link across this province and that we have something in that part of the province that will draw people and create a flow of traffic in the grid system of special attractions that we have been talking about for some period.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Minister, last year in this department you were spending about $2 million in advertising, and at that time you weren’t even loaning out $2 million to the tourist industry. How many millions are you planning to lend this year?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I take it that you are referring specifically to the tourist industry?

Mr. Sargent: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, in the last 11 months or thereabouts we have loaned, under the tourist loan programme, $22 million, which is up from a little more than $2 million a year ago at this time.

Mr. Sargent: So you are $20 million ahead of last year in the loans?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Sargent: How much are you spending on advertising?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Our advertising requirements for the current year in the field of publications will be $676,000. Advertising promotion for the domestic market, and I specifically refer to that one --

Mr. Sargent: What’s that? I missed the first figure?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s $676,000.

Mr. Sargent: You say $676,000?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s correct.

Mr. Sargent: Half a million dollars.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Well, about $176,000 better than half a million.

Advertising and promotion for the domestic market -- somebody mentioned this afternoon that we should be zeroing in on it, and we have been in the last two }ears -- will be $695,000. For the US market, where the greatest potential is for dollars in the economy, $1,740,000. The overseas market, which we are trying to penetrate with great effectiveness, particularly with the travel trade associations, and in their publications, in England, France, Germany and Japan, we shall be spending $135,000. That is in addition to co-operative advertising that we have with the State of New York, the Province of Quebec, the Province of Ontario and the federal government, and a second co-operative programme between Air Canada and the government of Ontario will account for about $820,000.

Mr. Sargent: What is the total?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The total is $4,260,000.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That doesn’t include the amount to regional councils either?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, it does not.

Mr. Sargent: Could we talk under this vote, Mr. Minister, about loans to Best Western Hotels, or under ODC?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Well, ODC is where they’re made, Mr. Member.

Mr. Stokes: I would like to ask the minister, in view of his response to my colleague, the member for Cochrane South, and in view of the down-playing of one major tourist attraction in favour of possibly several smaller ones to sort of spread out the effects of governmental expenditures, is this a policy change by this ministry to spread out the effects of the dollars that you’re spending, rather than concentrate them in one specific location? Or are there a very few restricted ones rather than, as I said before, trying to assist more areas of the province with the kinds of dollars that you have to spend?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Is this in lieu of Maple Mountain?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I shall not get into a discussion on Maple Mountain because it’s now tied up in more legal complications than one can imagine. But in answering the member for Thunder Bay’s question, if the travel industry is to be successful, it is not going to only be with large capital investment projects of the nature we’re talking about for Timmins or Ontario Place, Old Fort William, and so on. It’s going to be successful with those, but it’s going to have to be complemented with other attractions in various communities across the province.

Mr. Stokes: That makes a lot of sense.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We’re looking at Cobalt, we’re looking at Moosonee, and we are looking at projects in several other communities. They would never have the heavy capital investment that we’re talking about for Timmins, but they would certainly have an appeal; something that would create the need for a person going into that particular community. And it gives us an opportunity between the travel association and the government, through the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, to use it as another item in promoting tourism and travel in the province. It blends in, Mr. Member, to the grid system of tourist attractions across Ontario.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: In other words, I’m to understand then that the minister has accepted the fact that in the northeastern part of the province that there should be the development of a number of tourist attractions, instead of one major attraction, because of its being tied up in the legal complications that he refers to. And that I am well aware of, too, because they have tied up much of my area. But the fact is, then, that we’re going to have a diffusion of those funds into northeastern Ontario that may well have been spent in one specific area. You’ve mentioned Timmins. Where else did you mention?

Mr. Stokes: Cobalt, Moosonee.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Cobalt, Moosonee. I presume the southern part, the North Bay and Sudbury areas, would also be included, with some type of programme in the Algonquin-North Bay tourist region.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: May I clear up a point that has been brought forward by the member? I was not referring to the exclusion of any programme. We realize that it’s going to have to be a balanced programme. There are going to be some heavy capital investments in some tourist attractions, and there will be others of a more minor nature. But I am not wishing to exclude any project at this point.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Minister, are you aware of the food service in franchised service stations along Highway 401 that have eating establishments connected with them, and the garbage they’re putting out in those places now? Do you know what’s going on there? Have you tested that food? Are they inspected?

I had occasion this last month to go to Cornwall. I drove down and back with some of my colleagues. We couldn’t eat the food. We were hungry, but we couldn’t even eat the food. I think it’s time that someone did something about it. And that should come under your ministry.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Sargent: Further, am I to understand that you’re going to proceed with Maple Mountain in the north?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I indicated to the House very clearly some months ago under what conditions we would proceed to do our further studies on Maple Mountain. It very clearly was put to the House that once all of the clouds or whatever --

Mr. R. S. Smith: Cautions.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- cautions are cleared on the land and the title of the land rests in the name of the Crown, if that happens to be where it will rest, at that time we would proceed with the further studies that would be necessary to determine what the value of Maple Mountain would be as a development project for the province.

I am not going to make any further commitment than that tonight, nor until there is a clearance of title.

Mr. Sargent: Well, I am certainly glad to hear that, but where does an idea like this start? I mean, what is wrong with your thinking? You must have rocks in your head, to spend $70 million on a deal like that. From where we stand, I think that the public of Ontario thinks you are crazy. So bear that in mind.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 2004 carry?

Mr. Stokes: No.

Mr. R. S. Smith: When is the minister going to give a reply to the member for Sarnia so we can get along with the business of the House?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: May I answer one question before we leave the subject of Highway 401? I would tell the member for Grey-Bruce that I have taken up with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, which is the contracting agency of the government with those restaurants and service stations, some of the complaints that we experience not only in letter form coming in but that I as a minister experience when travelling to the city of Ottawa via 401. I do not always find the restaurants are the best quality -- that is, neither the food the best quality nor the price --

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you close them down?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We bring in inspectors. I might say that in most cases I sincerely believe that when the companies are made aware of it they try to improve. They slide back; I have no doubts about it. I have suggested to the minister that we keep a closer review of the situation, both as to the service, quality of food, the price of the goods -- I’m referring to petroleum as well -- and also the cleanliness.

There are a few occasions when I have been a little upset about the cleanliness of the situations that exist along 401. That is the main highway where most of the tourists get their first impressions of this province and the people who are living in it.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Minister, I have an establishment up north and your inspectors keep us right on line and we would lose our licence if we didn’t run a good place. I think it’s time that you started getting tough. You say you are going to look at it and you are going to do these things, but they still go on. Ten days ago it was pretty bad.

Mr. Chairman: May I draw to the members’ attention that it is 10.30 of the clock?

Shall this vote carry?

Mr. Bullbrook: No, oh no.

Mr. R. S. Smith: When the minister brings forward the answers to the questions --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask if there is some request that we sit beyond 10:30.

Mr. R. S. Smith: No, there is no request at all.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Then I will move that the committee rise and report.

Mr. Bullbrook: No, there is no request, there is no request. There is an undertaking on behalf of the chairman. No request at all.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, there was an undertaking on the part of the chairman that the minister would provide answers to the member for Sarnia, and the member for Sarnia would be given the chance to debate those answers.

Mr. Bullbrook: Right.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s the undertaking from a previous chairman who was sitting before you. Now, if we are not to go on the undertakings of the chairman in this House, we might as well just fold the whole place up and go home, and listen to the House leader and the chairman and have them go off in a corner and squander themselves.

Mr. Chairman: I would draw to the attention of the hon. member for Nipissing that to my knowledge the Chair has no prerogative to make such an undertaking --

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, quite right.

Mr. Chairman: -- and it is up to the House leader to decide whether we continue or rise and report.

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, well, I rise on a point of order. You are quite right, of course, under the rules and this is what we were stagnated with.

Hansard will disclose, of course, that I spent at least a minute, perhaps two minutes, saying that there was no House leader for the government here and asking the minister if he could undertake on behalf of the government side, as our House leader could have undertaken on our behalf, that we were prepared to give unanimous consent for the elasticizing of the normal rules to convenience -- and this is the point -- to convenience the minister to get the necessary information to give a specific reply to myself and to give me ample opportunity to respond. This is why we let go of vote 2002.

Let me say this to you, sir, if I may. When the House leader rises in his place now, not having obviously delegated his responsibility to someone else -- you raise your gavel to me, sir. I am on a point of order.

Mr. Chairman: I would like to point out that in view of the Chair there is no point of order because the motion to rise and report is not debatable.

Mr. Bullbrook: I say this to you most respectfully, sir -- and I realize that you are a very temperate man -- that we tried to get some understanding before. The then chairman said in effect: --

Mr. Sargent: Guaranteed.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- “Since we cannot have a unanimous understanding, I will give you my undertaking that the responses will be made and you have unlimited time for debate.” This is what happened and we resumed our places. The House leader now gets up and says: “Is there a request for the extension of the time?” There is no request at all. We made the request at 9:30 tonight. Right?

An hon. member: Right.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Then the hon. member is saying that there was a request.

Mr. Bullbrook: No request now.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Is that what he’s saying?

Mr. Bullbrook: No.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I want that clear. Is that what he’s saying, that there was a request?

Mr. Bullbrook: No.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: There was no request?

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

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Sargent: No, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Bullbrook: Let him go.

Mr. Sargent: -- on a point of order. We have only five hours on these estimates. We haven’t even touched the most important part of them.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am not going to tell you there was a request. You should have been here as House leader to know, or delegated to somebody who should know. I don’t have to tell you that at all.

Mr. R. S. Smith: We know the trust we can put in the Chair from now on.

Mr. Sargent: You know what’s going on. Come on, sit down and get going here. Are the estimates over then? What’s going to happen?

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: The committee of supply reports a certain resolution and asks for leave to sit again. Is it the pleasure of the House that the report be received and adopted?

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): No.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): No, I want to speak in connection with this, sir, before you adopt the report.

Mr. Speaker, in connection with vote 2002 in connection with this ministry, I had inquired of the minister in connection with certain specific interrogatories. It was understandable that he could not necessarily respond to those in kind and quickly. I think Hansard will disclose this. I ask my colleagues to guide me if I’m unfair in my resurrection and interpretation of the situation. Mr. Speaker, he said to us, in effect, that he would get the information. Sir, eventually there came before us the question of the vote on 2002. At that time, myself and others rose and requested that there be some understanding as to whether we would have the response and the ability to respond to the answers.

The House leader for the government was not in his place, and I don’t infer anything because of that. He can’t be in his place all the time but the fact of the matter is that he wasn’t in his place. I suggest to you, sir, as the arbiter of all our rights, that really we look to the House leader to guide us in connection with the understanding of the government. The minister couldn’t because he was only carrying his estimate. I had the authority from our House leader, my colleague from Essex-Kent (Mr. Ruston), to undertake on our behalf that we would give unanimous consent. Basically, as Hansard will disclose, the Chairman said that there would be an undertaking to us that responses would be made to our questions, and that we would be given opportunities to reply and debate.

Sir, I ask you to consider the fact that after 10:30 o’clock was called, the House leader then asked if there was a request for an extension. I said there wasn’t a request for an extension. He then asked if there was a previous request for an extension. There wasn’t a previous request for an extension. There was an understanding on all sides.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Mr. Bullbrook: There was an understanding by the minister and there was an understanding by myself that we would have a response and that we would quickly end the debate. It didn’t require a request for an extension.

I want to say to you, sir, that what you do is basically of no great consequence to me. May I say that to you? I say it to you in this respect. It is purely another example of the fact that we must have some direction from the government in connection with the conduct of its business. When, really, the opposition tries to ameliorate the situation by saying we understand there can’t be specific answers now and we’ll wait till later, to be confronted with this type of tactic, I say doesn’t serve us well.

Mr. Speaker: Just to reply briefly, the committee of supply or any other committee operates independently of the Speaker. I know what you are saying. I heard part of the exchange over the intercom but I would suggest that, as I understand it, there has been an arrangement among the House leaders to agree to certain procedures. I would suggest you would take it up with him and I don’t see any reason why --

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Oh, come now.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would think that the House leaders could work it out among themselves. If there is more time required I’m sure -- at least I would hope -- that that could be worked out as well.

Mr. Reid: You are copping out. Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the point of order?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The matter can’t be debated any longer.

Mr. Reid: A new point of order, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr. Reid: Pardon me?

Mr. Speaker: I don’t know what else I can say about the episode because it’s out of my hands.

Mr. Reid: I have a new point of order that I think is always in order and that is, sir, that you as the Speaker of the House are the guardian of our rights and privileges, and when you say, sir, that the committees of supply or estimates operate independently of you in this House, I respectfully say to you, sir, that that is most incorrect. You are also the guardian of our rights and privileges in those respects, and I cannot accept that understanding.

Mr. Speaker: What I said is still true.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I announced the business for the balance of the week last evening.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:42 o’clock, p.m.