The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FLOOD DAMAGE

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, last night I had the privilege of meeting the council of the township of Field and outlining our offer of support to re-establish community life in the flood-devastated area. As many members know, the village of Field is a settlement of more than 300 residents approximately 22 kilometres northwest of Sturgeon Falls. It was almost completely inundated when the Sturgeon River overflowed early this month and all 94 homes in the community had to be evacuated.

Following the Premier’s (Mr. Davis) visit there at the height of the flood --

Mr. T. P. Reid: The water receded.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- it was declared a disaster area and the province agreed to provide $4 for each $1 raised through public subscription. We’ve all been very gratified by the sympathetic response to the Field tragedy from across Canada, and particularly from communities like Cobalt which came through similar ordeals in the past.

In considering re-establishment of the community, the council of the township of Field took into account the vulnerable position of homes located on the flood plain of the Sturgeon River and decided it was preferable to relocate the townsite on higher ground rather than to develop extraordinary flood control works. They asked the government to help with the cost of flood-related services over the past month and for assistance with the relocation program. Last night on behalf of the government, I was able to reassure them of both.

On the first question my colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry), has undertaken to provide up to $190,000 to the municipalities of Field, Springer and Caldwell townships and the town of Sturgeon Falls toward extra costs they face as a result of the flood. My colleague, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett). is acquiring a number of mobile homes which will be located on government-owned land at Sturgeon Falls for use as temporary housing for the displaced families which have not found accommodation elsewhere.

At the same time, my colleagues, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) and the Minister of Housing, will help the township to acquire and develop a new townsite that it has selected above the flood plain and to provide enough serviced half-acre lots to handle the relocations.

Each home owner of residential property on the flood plain, which includes those in the village of Field as well as Crystal Falls and River Valley, will be given a new serviced lot in return for title to his present property, that is a lot-for-lot exchange. Where it is feasible or practical, they will be able to move their existing houses to their new lots at our expense. Where homes are damaged or unsuitable for relocation, we will purchase them at a fair market value, established before the flood, and the owners can rebuild on their lots in the new townsite or elsewhere.

In order to ensure that the victims of this misfortune are not further crippled in finding alternative housing, we plan special assistance for those with homes of lower-than-normal value. To do this, we will provide up to $5,000 in special funding on top of the price of any house whose fair market value, determined by independent appraisers, is less than $20,000. For example, the owner of a house valued at $12,000 would receive the full amount to bring the price to $17,000, while the owner of a house valued at $18,000 would receive $2,000 to reach the $20,000-ceiling.

In order to facilitate this program and to minimize hardship and delay, the government has designated Herb Aiken, my assistant deputy minister for northeastern Ontario, as disaster relief co-ordinator to ensure that all the government’s resources are readily accessible to the council and residents of Field.

As I said. I have already outlined our response to the council. Mr. Aiken will attend a meeting of residents on Saturday morning to respond to their concerns. At the same time, along with a number of my cabinet colleagues, I will meet here Tuesday with the owners of the Field lumber company, Field Lumber (1956) Limited, to see how we can assist them to overcome the ravages of the floods on their operation, which is such an essential part of that community.

Finally, I would like to say a brief word about our admiration for the municipal officials in west Nipissing and the people of Field who have suffered this appalling misfortune with great fortitude, courage and foresight. What we are seeing from them is a marvellous demonstration of the human spirit. I think we in this House are honoured to be able to help them to face the future with confidence.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT BILL

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, because of the importance of one of the amendments that I propose to introduce later today to the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, I would like to outline it in some detail. This amendment will change the definition of “public transportation” to allow my ministry to provide subsidies for municipalities to provide transportation facilities for the physically handicapped.

As I mentioned last March, this program is slated to get under way on July 1. The necessary background material has been completed and is being distributed to all municipalities. As this is a new and innovative program, we expect it will take up to three years to mature. During that period, we expect between 60 and 80 municipalities to take advantage of the subsidy and start their own program.

The very real need for this type of service was recognized some time ago and, as a result, over the past two or three years we have been carrying out experimental services in Metro Toronto, Ottawa-Carleton, Sault Ste. Marie, Peterborough and Chatham. They have proven both the viability of the program and our choice of specialized mini-buses and vans as well as cars, which provide more immediate mobility than would be possible by modifying existing transit vehicles.

Because we want to enable municipalities to provide a service that is comparable to regular transit service, in spite of the substantially higher unit costs, we will be subsidizing them for 50 per cent of these costs, up to a limit rated on a per capita basis. To make this program as practical as possible we are giving the municipalities the option of operating the service themselves or contracting it out. In addition, neither special donations to the service nor the value of volunteer services provided to the municipality will be used to diminish the province’s contribution. To ensure that all municipalities can avail themselves of this subsidy, financial assistance will also be available to municipalities which do not operate conventional transit services.

I believe this subsidy program will go a long way toward meeting the needs of the physically handicapped who are restricted in their choice of transportation and, consequently, their lifestyle. It will increase theft opportunity for employment, while providing access to recreational and social activities that so many of us take for granted. We have received a number of very complimentary letters from organizations dealing with the physically disabled in appreciation of this move to improve the mobility of this segment of our population.

There is one other amendment in this act that I would also like to mention briefly. It gives the minister or the appropriate road authority more flexibility in using a variety of suitable reflectorized or illuminated signs where detours are in effect on construction and maintenance projects. This amendment will eliminate the requirement for closed road signs at simple detours, which confuse motorists and contribute to traffic congestion in construction zones.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would like to review, for the benefit of the honourable members, a number of issues which have been raised over the past few weeks concerning the defective boilers built by Babcock and Wilcox Canada Limited for the Pickering B nuclear generating station.

The issues raised appear to fall into the following categories:

First: What are the defects? How were they discovered? What measures are being taken to correct them and ensure they do not occur again?

Second: Why was Babcock and Wilcox chosen for this contract and how?

Third: Who is responsible for the cost of repairing the defects?

In order to put my subsequent comments in context, I should explain there are 12 boilers for each of Pickering B’s four reactor units and 2,600 half-inch diameter, thin-walled tubes in each boiler. The length of the tubing in each boiler totals 26 miles, while the boilers are nearly 47 feet high and weigh 91½ tons.

In late 1978, Ontario Hydro began using a new technique for testing the tube bundles in the boilers of its nuclear reactors for micro defects. While using this new technique to test the recently installed boilers of reactor unit five at Pickering B, Ontario Hydro personnel discovered a partial blockage of some of the tubes. Following this discovery, work was stopped in mid-December 1978 pending investigation of the cause of the blockage. At that time, 32 boilers had been delivered to Pickering B.

In order for Ontario Hydro and Babcock and Wilcox to thoroughly investigate the cause of the blockage, the boiler shell and half shroud were removed from boiler number 33 to expose the tube bundle. A number of boiler tubes were found to be damaged through distortion of some of the baffle plates. I should emphasize this damage occurred after the boilers were fully assembled. Careful inspection during assembly ensured no damage had taken place up to that point.

The final step in the manufacturing process is to remove, by heat treatment, the residual stresses in the heavy metal shell of the boiler resulting from welding.

Intensive study of boiler 33 which had undergone heat treatment and boiler 34 which had not, indicated the damage had occurred during this heat treatment and all of the 32 boilers already delivered to Pickering B were probably damaged in the same way. As a result of investigations it has conducted, Ontario Hydro is satisfied the tube defects were not present in the boilers at Pickering A and Bruce A.

Ontario Hydro advised Babcock and Wilcox on April 17 that under the terms of the contract the 32 boilers supplied for Pickering B were unacceptable, and agreed with the manufacturer’s recommendation that they be returned to be rebuilt under shop conditions to meet the specifications. These specifications, of course, will have to be met on the remaining 16 boilers. Ontario Hydro has advised the Atomic Energy Control Board of the discovery of the defects and of the arrangements it has made with Babcock and Wilcox to correct the defects.

Ontario Hydro has set up a project team to work with Babcock and Wilcox to ensure the completion of all the boilers as quickly as possible. This team, among other responsibilities, will perform manufacturing surveillance activities at Babcock and Wilcox’s plant, will ensure priorities are established for all work being performed by Babcock and Wilcox for Ontario Hydro and will provide progress reports at regular intervals.

Let me now turn to the second category of issues, namely: Why was Babcock and Wilcox chosen for this contract, and how?

Babcock and Wilcox originally won the contracts to build the boilers for Pickering A and Bruce A in competitive tenders, in 1965 and 1970 respectively. For reasons of economy, efficiency and operating standardization, the boilers for Pickering B, which are virtually duplicates of those for Picketing A, were ordered from Babcock and Wilcox without competitive tenders in 1974.

[10:15]

The honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) asked yesterday whether Montreal Locomotive Works of Quebec, for instance, was also capable of making the Pickering B boilers. In reply I am informed that at the time that orders for these boilers were being placed in 1973 and 1974, Babcock and Wilcox was the only company in Canada which had the necessary manufacturing facilities in place to construct and manufacture this type of boiler. Other companies were, of course, interested but would have had to significantly upgrade their facilities.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to whether a performance bond should have been required, I am advised that it is not the normal practice in the industry to require a performance bond from companies which build this type of sophisticated equipment, unlike the normal practice in the construction industry where a performance bond is required from the contractor. Ontario Hydro has a prequalification system to review the companies it deals with to ensure that they have resources and capability to meet Ontario Hydro’s requirements satisfactorily.

Babcock and Wilcox is a reputable boiler supplier and has been supplying this type of equipment to Ontario Hydro, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and others for many years.

I would now like to turn to the third category of issues, namely, who is responsible for the cost of repairs?

Ontario Hydro’s position is that the boilers supplied by Babcock and Wilcox to date are unacceptable and that the cost of repairing the defects in the boilers is the responsibility of Babcock and Wilcox. As I understand it, Babcock and Wilcox’s position is that the responsibility for the defects in the boilers does not lie solely with them and that, as a result, they should not be solely responsible for the cost of repairing the defects. Clearly, this is a complex and difficult legal question which will require considerable discussion before it is ultimately resolved.

Discussions are currently under way between senior officials from Ontario Hydro and Babcock and Wilcox to determine the extent of the damage to the boilers and the liabilities and responsibilities of the parties. In view of the complexity of the questions involved, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further. I will, of course, inform the House when negotiations are complete.

The Leader of the Opposition has requested that Ontario Hydro’s contract with Babcock and Wilcox be tabled in this Legislature. In general, I am in full agreement with tabling any documents other than those relating to cabinet and personnel matters. In fact, Ontario Hydro’s commercial contracts have been tabled in the past, including the Denison, Preston and Gulf Minerals uranium contracts.

However, as a matter of general practice one has to balance off the public’s right to know with the commercial confidential nature of such contracts and the potential adverse effects which could result for Hydro and the electrical consumers of this province if the details of commercial contracts are available to its other suppliers on an indiscriminate basis.

It would seem to me that there is a larger issue which must be addressed first. Namely, should commercial contracts entered into by Ontario Hydro be freely available to any individual? That kind of question, in so far as it relates to a public corporation, is best addressed within the context of the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy. I trust that the honourable member will agree with me that it is important for this basic principle to be established first so that the interests of the electrical consumers of this province are not inadvertently jeopardized.

In the meantime, I have asked Ontario Hydro to make the contract available to the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs on the same basis as it is making available information on nuclear reactor safety. The contract will be delivered to the counsel to the select committee early next week.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy on the statement that he has just made. There are really three areas that I wish to take up with him; other members may wish to take up other matters, of course. The three areas are the failure to call tenders; the question of who will pay now that the boilers are defective; and, whether the contracts should be tabled in the House.

Perhaps I could start by asking about the failure to call tenders. The minister suggests that Babcock and Wilcox was the only company in Canada which had the necessary facilities in 1973 and 1974 and that’s why the arrangements were made without any tender being offered. How, in fact, does that seem justified in the minister’s mind? Surely if there were other companies that had a willingness to bid they would have bid and then built the facilities and presumably that would have been reflected in the costs they would have demanded in their bid. How does such a practice end up justified in the minister’s mind? Why did the matter not go to tender so that MLW, Foster-Wheeler or anybody else who wished to bid would at least have an opportunity to do so?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think there were perhaps three reasons Hydro decided to pursue the route it did. One was the desire for standardization. As I mentioned in the statement, the design is the same as the design of the boilers in the other reactors at both Pickering and Bruce. Standardization was necessary for the maintenance and convenience of spare parts and that sort of thing. There was an advantage to Hydro in having the same unit.

Second, as I indicated in the statement, I am informed that the other companies were not in a position to manufacture immediately. It might have taken them I some time to tool up to meet the specifications.

Mr. S. Smith: Then they would not have bid.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Not necessarily.

Third, Hydro was very satisfied with the performance of these boilers. They had been in touch with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited --

Mr. J. Reed: In the United States they only operated at 88 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- who had purchased some further boilers a short time before and were able to negotiate a price based on the price that Atomic Energy of Canada had paid, as I understand it, for some similar boilers. They had taken a look at the consumer price index so that they were satisfied they were getting a good price.

Mr. S. Smith: Just by way of supplementary to finish off with this one: If the other companies were in no position to manufacture it, they would not have bid, also, if their price was too high, it could have been rejected and if their standards were not good enough, it could have been rejected. It is still no excuse for not putting the matter out to tender.

But I want to ask who will pay, now that there turns out to be a very serious defect? I gather no bond was required of the company. But will the minister address himself to the comments of Mr. Morison of Hydro and the article by Mr. Makin in the Globe and Mail? Would he also comment on reports I have heard from within Hydro that Hydro has decided that if it had to make Babcock and Wilcox pay, that might bankrupt the company and therefore Hydro is not going to go after Babcock and Wilcox for the full cost of this defective boiler matter?

Under these circumstances, why was there not a bond? What good is a guarantee if chasing them for the money is likely to bankrupt them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The bonding company was going bankrupt at that time. Ask some of your legal friends.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I addressed the question of who is going to pay in the statement. As far as Hydro is concerned, its position is that the boilers must meet the specifications and I don’t think I should comment any further. This matter will be discussed at some length. I think what I have said really is all I can say at this point.

As far as a performance bond is concerned, that is exactly what it is. I am informed it is most unusual for this kind of equipment to be covered by a performance bend. As the Leader of the Opposition I am sure is aware, a performance bond is just that. If the contractor is not able to carry out his contract, the bonding company then hires somebody else to do it. When one is using proprietary equipment such as this boiler, nobody else could complete it except Babcock and Wilcox, so the point of having a performance bond really wouldn’t apply.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: The minister states that Babcock and Wilcox was, in Hydro’s view, the only company that was in the position to build these particular boilers. How does the minister reconcile that contention with the fact that the orders were placed in 1973-74 and the boilers weren’t built until, I think, the calendar year of 1978, perhaps beginning in 1977? This would leave a three-year period in which any other competitor could have tooled up and dealt with it. What’s the minister’s comment on the apparent anomaly there?

Hon. Mr. Auld: It is simply what I said in the statement. The information I have from Hydro is that that was the position. But, as I said, there were two other considerations. I think the consideration of standardization was a very important one as far as Hydro was concerned.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Can the minister confirm to the House that the Atomic Energy Control Board had a capability study done, referring especially, to the Babcock and Wilcox company in Canada? Can he tell us what that capability study informed the control board and Ontario Hydro about this situation, and will he table the study so that the members of the Legislature can see what the control board knew about this matter?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am not aware that the Atomic Energy Control Board did a study of Babcock and Wilcox. I will inquire about that.

Mr. Nixon: You were going to do that three weeks ago.

Mr. S. Smith: That is right. You were asked the same question three weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have lost it along with all the other questions. I will get to the bottom of it.

Mr. M. Davidson: Supplementary: On page seven of the minister’s statement, it indicates that the Babcock and Wilcox position is that the responsibility for defects in the boilers does not lie solely with them. The minister will recall that some two or three weeks ago I asked him if he would look into the suggestion that perhaps the reason for change in the method of treatment was as a result of Ontario Hydro or the Atomic Energy Control Board specifying that this change should be made to Babcock and Wilcox. Has he looked into that as yet?

Hon. Mr. Auld: As I said, there are discussions going on between the two principals. I really don’t feel that I should comment any further. As I am sure the honourable member is aware, it is quite possible that this whole matter might wind up in court. I don’t think either side is making any statements other than what I just mentioned in my statement.

Mr. S. Smith: I have a final supplementary which has to do with the tabling of the contract. We are not asking for the indiscriminate tabling of all the commercial contracts of Hydro at the moment. What we are asking for is this particular contract inasmuch as it might appear that the people of Ontario, the consumers of electricity, are possibly going to be on the hook for tens of millions of dollars for manufacturing defects.

Under these circumstances, surely if the minister is willing to send the contract to the select committee, he should be willing to table it here in the House so that we can see whether the American parent company of Babcock and Wilcox is in any way on the hook for this, and is standing behind them and so that we can see whether there were any matters in the contract which Babcock and Wilcox can use in order to get out of its responsibilities and what kind of a business-like job was done by Hydro.

It would appear that we have a situation here in which the public interest has not been properly protected. I would ask the minister, therefore, to table the contract in the Legislature as well as in the select committee.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think I indicated fairly clearly the reason for the approach I am suggesting. I have spoken to the chairman of the select committee this morning. He tells me that the committee is meeting next Wednesday and the steering committee will probably be looking at the contract. All parties are represented on that committee. I would think that any questions that the Leader of the Opposition or others have could be conveyed to the members of their party on the committee. But I think it is really quite a dilemma because of commercial confidentiality, particularly when this discussion is going on as to the degree of responsibility of any of the two principals as to the cost of repair, to have Hydro attempting to be negotiating in a fish bowl. There is the possibility of court action.

Mr. S. Smith: The courts will see the documents. Why can’t we?

Hon. Mr. Auld: In the event it did get to court, I am sure that would happen.

[10:30]

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANTS

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Seeing he seems determined to go ahead and give away millions of dollars of public money to prosperous corporations, and knowing he wishes to reduce the amount of paperwork and difficulty these businesses encounter, and recognizing as well, there are no rules, regulations or legislation for the Employment Development Fund, I have prepared for him and wonder if he would consider using, an application form firms could use. I will read from it; it is very easy. They just have to fill in the blanks and tick it off.

Would he consider using the following application form which says, for instance:

“Recently, I sent my wife, secretary, assistant or other; to A, B, C” -- Tennessee, Georgia, Florida or wherever -- “where, considering labour costs, land prices, taxes and so on, it would be a certain number of dollars cheaper”? There is even a place to include the cigarette box used for the calculations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the honourable member would state the question.

Mr. S. Smith: Would he consider using this as a paperwork saving device for the Employment Development Fund?

Mr. MacDonald: That is an abuse of the question period.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will tell the Leader of the Opposition that I will, in fact, use this document. I will use this document to show the unemployed people throughout this province just how seriously the Leader of the Opposition takes the unemployment situation in this province.

I will take this document to those firms who spend one day a week meeting very seriously with those who are trying to attract people like Tridon out of this province. I will show them how seriously the Leader of the Opposition in this province takes the matter of keeping those firms here, while the next day they are meeting with senior government officials, governors and all the rest, who are prepared to offer them much more serious and more meaningful incentives than we are prepared to offer.

Happily, in this province we still have a good enough investment climate, notwithstanding this sort of garbage, that we don’t have to meet, in most cases, the full differential between investing in places like Tennessee and Ohio versus the cost in Ontario. They still want to invest in Ontario, but in the face of the serious incentives being offered by the United States -- not this sort of garbage -- we must meet that competition.

I am happy to have this document. The Leader of the Opposition will be hearing a lot about it in places represented by his colleagues behind him.

Mr. S. Smith: Does the minister not understand that a fund set up without rules, without regulations, without criteria, without legislation supporting it, can only lead to every manager in Ontario standing on the steps of Queen’s Park with his hand out, requesting money for his prosperous corporation?

Does he not understand that when he starts giving away money of this kind to the large corporations in Ontario, the very next request will be for shares and control in those corporations? Does he not understand the free enterprise system will, in fact, find itself undermined by this particular method?

When he is giving money to his competitor to expand here, how is he going to tell the owner of a plant that is now in Ontario he won’t give him money just to stay in Ontario when he threatens to pick up and leave? He will end up having to bribe every prosperous company to stay in Ontario.

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

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Firstly, I must say I find the total inconsistency of the Leader of the Opposition astonishing. It was almost exactly a year ago that the Leader of the Opposition rose in this Legislature and said, “Never mind the federal government, if you have to pay another $17.5 million, keep throwing the money at them because we need that plant for Ontario.”

Mr. S. Smith: We accepted Ford. Don’t give us Ford again since we accepted that one, because you were playing anti-Quebec politics with that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will tell the Leader of the Opposition what has happened since last year. Last year, he was convinced he could take that position because we wouldn’t get the plant; then after we got that plant and won the competition, he began to get frightened and said, “My Lord, the Tories may succeed in using this money and attracting all those jobs to this province, so I better reverse my position and take the other tack.”

Mr. S. Smith: Tell the truth.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is what he is doing.

Let me tell the member I have two of the best civil servants in this province dealing with the applications that come to the fund. They don’t put out garbage like this; they don’t play games with them; and they don’t ask about secretaries and the cost of cigarettes in Tennessee as members opposite might ask. They don’t pretend that the only way to help firms is by hiding it under loans, as they would have it. They don’t pretend that the most effective way to help firms is to do it by guarantees as they would have it.

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: You get your money back for the province with a loan.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What they do is to operate --

Mr. S. Smith: You get paid back the loan.

Hon Mr. Grossman: We will get every cent of the Ford deal back in two and a half years -- every single cent of it. The loans the member is talking about we will get back in five or 10 years.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: From their shareholders?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have to tell the member I am not going to war with an incomplete arsenal. I am not about to say, “I’m sorry, all I’m allowed to do in this province is to guarantee some money for you at a bank.” I’m not prepared to do that. If I had been able to do only that in Windsor, the Ford V-6 engine plant would be in the United States. The Leader of the Opposition had better remember that, because one day I will take him into my office and if his colleagues won’t show him the letters they have written me, if his colleagues won’t tell him the phone calls they have made to me asking for some Employment Development Fund money in their ridings, I will show him the requests they have made.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Before the House becomes overwhelmed with rhetoric from both sides on this particular question, I want to ask, what benefits has Canada achieved which we would not otherwise have had from having this kind of grant, including the need for equity? I would like to ask specifically, in the case of HSA Reactors Limited, what is the commitment to maintain domestic ownership made by that company, and what guarantee does Ontario have that that commitment will in fact be maintained? How has the minister ensured that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have entered into an agreement with HSA whereby the company has agreed that any manufacturing plant that is set up as a result of this support we are giving for Canadian-based research and development will, in fact, be established in this province. I think that is exactly the sort of thing I hear politicians talk about all the time, maintaining research and development, not allowing that to be purchased, bought off, or stolen by other jurisdictions. I should tell you that in this case HSA has received a very substantial offer from Americans to provide them with direct equity, which would mean that not only would the manufacturing plant go to the United States but all the technology which has been developed in this province would go to the United States.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And you people would let it go.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I just don’t think it is appropriate to let that happen. Therefore, we have guaranteed money at the bank, we have not laid out a cent. In exchange we have got an explicit and clear guarantee that any manufacturing operation set up will be maintained in this province. Further, we have obtained from them an undertaking that there will not be a transfer or sale of the shares of that company from the Canadian owners to non-Canadians.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Recognizing that the need for the Employment Development Fund is because of the failure of programs of the past, and because of the precarious position we are in today, when is the minister going to start addressing the fundamental questions -- such as, for example, the promised program for apprenticeship -- that were in the budget and promised by various ministers? We have yet to hear anything about them.

We have repeatedly heard about the failures of the government with respect to job training in this province. When are we going to hear something about the fundamental problems? And about research grants to Ontario Research Foundation, for example, et cetera? When is the government going to start working on the fundamentals, rather than just trying to buy off a few people for a short-term gain?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, the member ignores the fact that in this year alone we have increased our grant to the Ontario Research Foundation fairly substantially.

Mr. Peterson: No, you haven’t.

Mr. Ruston: More slush funds like the Wintario grants.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, I have. The member wasn’t in the House the day I made the statement. There was $400,000 more this year to ORF.

I know the member’s leader likes to trot around talking about the amount of support we give to the Ontario Research Foundation. What he neglects, or what his researchers neglect, is the fact that the funding for the Ontario Research Foundation in this province, when compared with that in other provinces, is totally different. There are different funding mechanisms for research foundations throughout this country and therefore any province-by-province comparison is foolish.

Secondly, the member, as the Treasury critic, and succeeding Marvin Shore in his party as the chief economic expert --

Mr. Breithaupt: And in the minister’s party as well.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- stood up this morning and is totally unaware of the fact that we’ve increased our ORF grant this year by some $400,000. So before he talks about anyone else not having comprehensive policies, not understanding where we’re going on an economic basis, he should do his homework first.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In view of the fact that the supplementaries have strayed considerably from the original question -- which was: “Would the minister consider using an application form?” -- I’ll have the first question from the member for Ottawa Centre.

APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have another question, which arises out of yesterday’s announcement, to the Minister of Education. Can the minister say, in the case of Tridon Limited, of TRW Canada Limited, HSA Reactors Limited and Dominion Twist Drill Limited what commitments have been made by those companies for training and upgrading the skills of their existing employees and of the employees that they intend to hire with the Employment Development Fund grants? Will the minister say specifically how many apprenticeship places have these companies agreed to as a result of getting the grants?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that information since I do not know the exact content of the documents which have been signed. It is my understanding that a part of the requirement for such support is, indeed, the establishment of appropriate numbers of apprenticeship places or employer-sponsored or upgrading places within that institution.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary: Since one of the aims of the Employment Development Fund was to foster the development of needed job skills, was the Ministry of Education, and the apprenticeship branch in particular, involved in any way in the negotiations since some of the companies involved had next to no apprenticeships under way right now?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, in the direct negotiations with companies I do not think there was any such involvement, but I think that question should be directed to my colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism, who was directly involved in it and who has been listening carefully to what I have said.

Mr. Cassidy: I’ll redirect the question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism then and ask him to reply.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want to assure the House that there is a constant mechanism developed with the Ministry of Labour -- soon to be the Ministry of Labour and Manpower -- to co-ordinate these matters. They are brought in for consultation with us whenever we are in any situation which obviously involves the need for more skilled workers. In both the case of Tridon and of TRW they have agreed in writing to employ and train in Ontario the required skill levels as set out in part of our agreement, so in both cases they have undertaken to train the necessary workers for those operations.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister say how many in each case will the companies train, and will he table the agreements that have been made about the development of skills which are involved with each of these grants?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will be happy to give the member all that information, the exact numbers and, if not the agreements, the essence of the agreements.

Mr. Peterson: A supplementary: Did the minister just answer that -- I didn’t hear it, I’m sorry -- he was prepared to table in this House the documents of agreement with all recipients of grants under the Employment Development Fund? If he did say that, I’m sorry for repeating. If he didn’t, would he let us scrutinize the documents on all recipients of the fund?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We’re just looking at the documents, which have just recently been developed with our solicitors, but I can assure the House that, obviously, there is some concern with regard to the contents of some of them --

[10:45]

Mr. Bolan: Are you leaving to grease somebody else’s pockets now?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- in terms of confidential information filed with us, and of the companies. However, I can assure the member we will either table the agreements or table all the essential parts of the agreements; for example, the undertakings we’ve received from the firms.

ALCOHOLISM TREATMENT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, responsible for the ministries of Health and of Community and Social Services. Is the minister aware there are four halfway houses for alcoholics in downtown Ottawa whose future service is in jeopardy because of the policy of the government that services for people suffering from alcoholism are of low priority? Specifically, can the minister explain why permanent funding for these halfway houses is being denied when two of them have had grants in aid from the Ministry of Health -- in one case for as long as four years?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I think that question more rightfully should be directed to the Minister of Health. Are these detox centres?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Halfway houses.

Interjections.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I don’t have that information on specific programs within the Ministry of Community and Social Services, but I’ll make sure the honourable member receives that information on Monday.

Mr. Warner: What a disaster show over there.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that effective October of last year the Ministry of Community and Social Services decided not to fund any more halfway houses for alcoholics and to give low priority to treatment for alcoholics in its programs? Can the minister say what, in the opinion of the government, whether through the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Community and Social Services, is to be done for people who are suffering from alcoholism and who are on waiting lists for halfway houses in order to get treatment and are being turned away because of the policies of this government?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I think this government has provided many opportunities for people with those particular problems --

Mr. Cooke: Be specific. Let’s hear about it.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- to get help in the treatment centres that are available across this province. I am not aware of the particular halfway houses the member refers to but, as I suggested, I will have that information for him on Monday.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Would the minister not consider that in her supervisory capacity she should see that the government policy announced a year ago for the removal of advertising pressures, particularly for the consumption of beer, is implemented? Just because the minister in that particular area which controls the policy of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario has changed, shouldn’t her policy direction be paramount so the original announcement for the control, if not the removal, of lifestyle beer advertising be implemented?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I don’t think that is a supplementary to the original question that was asked.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: You’re darn right it isn’t. No relationship.

Interjections.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The Speaker knows it. He’s very well aware that is not a supplementary question.

Mr. Nixon: The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) didn’t refer to it yesterday when he said he was cracking down on drinking drivers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Nixon: He’s not doing anything about the advertising.

Mr. Bolan: He doesn’t get any headlines out of it, that’s why.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I think that question should be directed to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea).

Interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the minister says she thinks services for alcoholics in the province are at an adequate level right now, is she aware there are only 25 beds for female alcoholics in halfway houses across the province? Is she also aware that in the case of Ottawa, the Amethyst women’s treatment centre has been told it can have a grant in aid but not have permanent funding? Does she believe only 25 places across the province is an adequate response to the growing problem -- a difficult problem -- of alcoholism among women?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Again, I don’t think I indicated I thought we had an adequate number of beds available for treatment of alcoholics. I think we are very much aware that it is a tremendous, growing concern and we’re attempting to meet the need.

Mr. Swart: By cutting back?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I’m not aware of the specific problems the member refers to in the Ottawa area. Again, I indicated I will have that information brought up to date on Monday.

PHYSICIANS OPTING OUT OF OHIP

Mr. Bradley: I have a question for the Minister of Health: In view of the fact the Minister of Health indicated to the House there would be co-operation with those who wanted to know which doctors were opted in and opted out of OHIP, would the minister indicate to the House whether it is the policy of OHIP to provide to such groups as labour unions, lists of doctors within a specific area in the province who have opted out of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan in order that they in turn may inform their membership so that people within the membership may choose doctors based on the fees they are going to charge?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, what I indicated in my statement on March 29 was that the Ontario Medical Association, through its head office and affiliate offices around the province, would provide assistance to members of the public if they wanted to find a new physician or an opted-in physician. At the time, they publicized their Zenith line, and all the reports I have had are that that is being used and is being of help to the people. We do not publish lists as such, no.

Mr. Bradley: A supplementary: In view of the fact that, in the April edition of the Local 199 UAW News, one of the officials of the union indicated that a phone call to the Ontario Medical Association yielded similar results to a phone call to the Hamilton district office of OHIP -- and he said that the OHIP office in Hamilton had been instructed not to assist -- would the minister not agree, since this information does not seem to be readily available to people such as those in the labour union movement who are concerned about it, that OHIP should co-operate in providing this list so that the public of Ontario can be aware of which doctors are opted in and opted out and can make a sensible choice?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think it is best looked after on an individual basis. Where an individual moves into an area and wants to find a new physician or an opted-in physician, when he calls the medical association he is given names of doctors in that area who are available and who are opted in. That seems to work well, and I think it is best left that way.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister has now admitted that there is no legal opinion to justify his refusal to give that information, would he not now be prepared to allow public-spirited groups like the UAW, local municipalities or citizens groups to get information from the plan itself about the doctors opted in and opted out of OHIP so that they in turn can assist citizens to find out how to get an opted-in doctor?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the answer I gave the honourable member to the Notice Paper question was that at the time I did not have a written legal opinion. So I would ask him please not to try to distort that, purposely or not. I just want the record to be clear.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I said specifically that the minister had had no legal opinion to justify his refusal. He should not seek to twist words, as he has just done in this House.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: After watching the honourable member for eight years, he is a past master when it comes to twisting words.

The answer to him would be the same as that which I gave the member for St. Catharines. The strength of our health-care system is the relationship between patient and doctor, and it works well in the interest of the public. As regards this particular question, it is best worked out on an individual basis, rather than by some kind of pillorying, which the honourable member would prefer.

DISASTER RELIEF ASSISTANCE

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Can the minister indicate whether his ministry and the cabinet have yet been able to assess the situation in White River, and can he give any indication whether the government is prepared to make a statement that it will extend the same kind of assistance to White River as it has to other areas that have experienced flooding in the northeast?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet has looked at, but has not made any determination on, that matter; I expect it will at next week’s cabinet meeting. I see no reason why White River cannot be included.

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources, I will direct my question to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Is the minister aware that in the past long weekend, Algonquin Provincial Park experienced yet another sharp, serious decline in visitorship? And is the minister aware this sharp, serious decline comes upon a series of sharp declines over the past three years?

An hon. member: He is now.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: On the decline in business in the past weekend in Algonquin Park, I don’t know what the weather was like in the member’s area, but in my area it was lousy. There was a decline in the tourist business all over northern Ontario.

Mr. T. P. Reid: What are you going to do about the weather?

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the members allow the member for Renfrew North to ask a short supplementary?

Mr. Conway: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Given the fact that the weather in the Algonquin Park area was excellent; and given the fact that the local population is increasingly concerned that it is not the weather but rather the import of much of the Algonquin Park master plan which is threatening to render such communities as Whitney in the words of a local press account a ghost town, can the minister assure this House his government will undertake a very serious review, as proposed by the Algonquin Park master plan review, of those serious economic implications which those new planning guidelines are having on such otherwise depressed communities as Whitney? Can he assure this House that review will be undertaken as quickly as possible and that any changes or corrections that are required will be introduced at the earliest opportunity so that --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Conway: -- so that such communities as Whitney will not be facing the kind of bleak and serious economic future which seems to be theirs as the result of, in some cases, unwise planning by that --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The question has been asked several times.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, we would be pleased to consider any constructive suggestion to improve the economic climate.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister be willing to reconsider the government’s increase in park fees which led to an overall decline of 11 per cent last year and seems to be continuing this year as well?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: There’s no thought at this time to make any changes in the prices.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr. Young: The question is for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Following up the minister’s statement of last week and the Solicitor General’s (Mr. McMurtry) statement of yesterday, in view of the increasing number of smaller cars of a high vulnerability in big-car/small-car crashes, will the minister seriously recommend to the new and perhaps more friendly Minister of Transport in Ottawa that we follow the United States plan and have front-seat passive restraints phased into our cars over the three years beginning in 1981? And will he, in cooperation with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and perhaps the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, move to ban and counteract the flood of lifestyle ads designed to increase consumption of alcohol among the 16- to 24-year-olds among whom about 40 per cent of the road accidents and deaths occur?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I certainly will be prepared to discuss -- and I’m looking forward very much to discussing -- many matters relating to automobile safety with the new Minister of Transport in Ottawa, whoever he or she may be, within the next few days.

Mr. Nixon: Maybe before the election.

Mr. Breithaupt: Whoever she may be.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It may be an it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would have to say that I am looking forward to a great deal more co-operation from that office than we’ve had in the last four years.

Mr. Conway: How do you like Otto Jelinek now?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I sure like him a lot better than Otto Lang anyway; that’s for sure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

[11:00]

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am looking forward, Mr. Speaker, to a new federal Minister of Transport who will be in favour of transportation instead of doing everything possible, as the previous one did in the last four years, to be against it.

Mr. Philip: Now that he’s out, answer the question.

Mr. Warner: Answer the question. You have nobody left to blame.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It appears that the members don’t want to hear the answer. If the honourable minister has anything further, he may add it. If not, I will call for a new question.

Mr. Nixon: Let’s have a couple of supplementaries.

Hon. Mr. Davis: A lot of leading questions over there.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will be discussing those items with the federal minister.

With regard to the other part of the comments relating to advertising, I believe the honourable member should put those questions to the ministers responsible for those areas.

Mr. Young: Supplementary: In view of the fact that at least a third, and perhaps more, of our people are not using seat belts at the present time -- and I compliment the Solicitor General on his better enforcement in the future, we hope -- and the fact that the smaller cars become increasingly dangerous in collision situations, is it not his opinion that passive restraints, such as we are going to have in the United States but which are not here yet, become very vital as a lifesaving feature in our whole safety program?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I presume the honourable member is referring to a passive restraint as being either automatic seat belts or the air bag, and I think we have --

Hon. Mr. Davis: You people know all about air bags over there.

Mr. T. P. Reid: One of the biggest is speaking right now.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly very much in favour of further research and development of passive seat belts. I have some concerns personally regarding the automatic air bags, but possibly that’s because of my experience in this House with some automatic air bags.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue as a supplementary the minister’s comment about lifestyle advertising. Does he not recall the statement made as a matter of cabinet policy that lifestyle advertising was going to be controlled and reduced so that young people particularly were not going to be subjected to the kind of advertising pressure that would lead them to the use of alcohol before or during the time when they are driving cars?

Is he not further aware that his colleague, the Attorney General, in his statement yesterday indicated there was going to be a crackdown on drinking drivers and that one of the obvious ways that this can be made effective, instead of hiring more “eyes in the sky,” would be to control the advertising that has become such an important part in moving our young people to excessive drinking?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall ever making such --

Mr. Nixon: Your policy has flipped right over.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I was just going to say, Mr. Speaker, if I can try to remember if there was a question in there. No, I do not recall ever making that statement.

Mr. Eakins: Let’s hear you make it now. Let’s hear your opinion.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Personally, I may agree very much with the statement that the honourable member just made, but I never made that statement.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. In the light of his response of April 9 to a question on ambulance services in which he invited specific documentation of any incidents which caused concern, will the minister investigate the allegations contained in this brief, which does, in fact, list many specifics?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, during my most recent visit to London I had occasion to speak on the telephone from one of the radio stations with a representative of the local ambulance attendants association and indicated to him that if they would be specific any complaint would be investigated to ensure that we do maintain the highest possible standards in our ambulance system.

As recently as this morning, I spoke with the chairman of a subcommittee of the Thames Valley health council, which is looking at ambulance services in the area, to see if there are any recommendations they want to make, to ensure maintenance of a high quality. So, of course, I will look at what has been sent to me.

Mr. Van Horne: The minister made reference to the program on which he spoke, and also, I made reference to the April 9 reply. He indicated in that reply that a full investigation and detailed response would be forthcoming soon. Could he tell me when that “soon” will be?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As soon as possible.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr. di Santo: To the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs: Is the minister aware that the last property tax increase for the owner of an average-sized house in North York in 1979 is $90 and that taxes for an average house are now more than $1,100 a year? If the minister is aware, can he tell us if, 13 years after the Smith report and repeated promises, the government is finally determined to introduce tax reform based on equity and fairness?

Hon. Mr. Wells: This government has always been committed to ongoing tax reform at the local level and I would have to say I have indicated some of the things that are going to happen. My colleague, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck), is going to introduce the new equalization factors in July, which will bring equity to the unconditional grant system in this province.

Some municipalities have had section 86 reassessments, which have caused some problems, but which, when all is said and done, have created certain equities in the assessments in those particular areas. We are reviewing and working now with the municipal liaison committee on a method of fiscal transfers between the province and the municipalities, which will take effect next year, I hope. We are always looking at ways to reform the system and to assist municipalities and the taxpayers in them. That doesn’t mean there hasn’t been some increase in taxes this year, but I think the municipalities can justify that.

Mr. di Santo: Not some increase; in the last three years the property taxes in Metropolitan Toronto have doubled.

I would like to ask the minister, since the property tax increases are caused primarily by the decreased provincial grants -- the educational grants went down from 61 to 52 per cent in the last five years -- and in view of the fact that since 1976 there has been no improvement in the tax credit for senior citizens, how can the government say that they are continually reviewing the tax system? Doesn’t the minister think that he is betraying the expectations of low-income and senior citizens and the commitment made before the last election in the so-called charter for Ontario, to eliminate completely municipal taxes for senior citizens? Doesn’t he think he should do as the government of Alberta did and fulfil the promise to cut municipal taxes?

Hon. Mr. Wells: First, let me say that it is my recollection that probably about 60 per cent -- maybe just a little under 60 per cent -- of the senior citizens of this province do not pay any education tax because of the property tax credit. When they pay their income tax and the property tax credit is computed, the amount they receive is either equivalent to or more than the amount of education taxes they pay. So, in reality, nearly 60 per cent of the senior citizens of this province do not pay education tax.

In terms of actual increase in taxes, I don’t know exactly what it is in North York, but the education tax in Scarborough, where I live, went up $30 this year. I must say I do not consider that an inordinate increase in education taxes this year, considering the kind of education I am receiving from the schools of this province for the three children of mine who attend the public school system.

Mr. Grande: The province pays less.

Mr. Epp: Supplementary: I wonder whether the minister would indicate to this House to what extent he plans to expand the unconditional grants, which was recommended by a committee chaired by the deputy minister and to which he alluded just a few minutes ago, thereby providing more autonomy for local municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The whole matter of unconditional grants and the grants reform committee is still under study. I think my friend knows some of the problems encountered there. That committee recommended massive deconditionalizing of grants. But, as we discussed in my estimates last year, if one starts talking about highway grants, my friend, the Minister of Transportation and Communications, will give 25 reasons why highways grants should not be deconditionalized. He is backed up by all the municipal road engineers who work for the same councils that support the recommendations of the grant reform committee. Then there are library grants and so forth.

The whole matter of deconditionalizing grants and unconditional grants is one that is still under study. I cannot give any answer yet as to what will happen with that report.

USE OF COURIER SERVICE

Mr. Mancini: I would like to place my question to the Minister of Health. Is he aware that the ambulance services branch has used the services of a very expensive courier to send out mail to the ambulance operators of Ontario instead of using Canada Post? Could the Minister of Health inform the House at what cost this courier was used and if this is ministry policy? Is this an example of the restraint program that has been initiated by this government where it uses courier services and at the same time closes down hospital beds?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As I told the member in the chamber last Friday, that matter was investigated. It was found that a relatively new employee had done that, thinking she was doing the right thing. In fact, it was not. Steps have been taken to make sure that in future any use of couriers would be with approval of her supervisors, since there will be cases where one wants to get out information of an emergent nature.

That is not standard procedure, as I told the member before. Steps have been taken to correct the matter.

Mr. Mancini: What did it cost?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will have to get that for the member. I do not have those figures with me any more; I had them with me last week when we discussed it.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: Could the minister please table in the House the cost of the courier services used in the past year by the Ministry of Health so that the members of the Legislature can know to what extent he is using these courier services instead of the post office?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I will take that into consideration. It certainly shows in the public accounts.

USE OF HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister going to permit the Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education to use 2,4-D for spraying school yards, in view of the fact that some children were reported to have suffered adverse effects from last year’s spraying and in view of mounting evidence that this substance is a health hazard and possibly a carcinogen?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance to have some consideration on this matter prior to this question. If I understand the figures correctly, 12 parents in that area are concerned. I think it is a great opportunity for those parents in that community, along with their school board, to put into a very balanced perspective the advantages of mechanical versus chemical destruction of weeds -- or, indeed, a much broader issue, the use of chemicals in our society.

[11:15]

At this time they can choose whatever method they wish to control the weeds in the school yard. It is their problem and they should use it as a great educational experience.

Mr. Conway: Local autonomy in weed control!

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Once in a while the members opposite will learn that the people of this province have to make some choices and decisions on their own; it is not always this government. The members opposite would take away all of the people’s thought process and put it in government, then pretend that they are the people’s protectors.

Mr. Mattel: Go drill a tooth.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would love to drill the honourable member’s -- and there would be no local anaesthetic!

Mr. Mattel: I’d die of suffering first.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That’s good news for me too. How was I diverted from my original answer, Mr. Speaker? I think it was an interjection from the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought you were finished with the answer.

An hon. member: Blame it on the feds.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: No, no. They would not be that foolish these days.

Let me get back to the question: I think it is a great opportunity for an educational experience in that particular community. I know that many of those parents are using vast quantities of 2,4-D on the farms they now work. I do not think one can put this question in such simple terms. Those students should be brought face to face with the value of 2,4-D in our farm communities. The only way they will do that is if they stop spraying in their school yards and then take their hoes and start hoeing a 50-acre field of corn. That might have some significance to them, because 90 per cent of 2,4-D is used in the farm community and, I think, doing an excellent job.

The very small drop of material used in the school yards relative to the total use in society should be put in perspective. It is a good opportunity for an educational experience, and I will not interfere.

Ms. Bryden: I would like to ask the minister whether he is aware that the British Columbia Medical Association stated as recently as May 1978 that 2,4-D has demonstrable carcinogenic and teratogenic effects, and that the National Farmers Union in Saskatchewan is questioning the use of 2,4-D on farms as well? It seems to me that when children’s health is involved we should exercise extra caution.

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

Ms. Bryden: Will the minister ban the use of this for school yards until such time as its safety has been established?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: To ban 2,4-D in the school yards of this province is such a silly proposal that it is beyond my comprehension to understand why the honourable member would ask that. It is the smallest possible drop in a very large bucket. It would have no effect on our health whatsoever -- none, absolutely zero -- and yet the proposal is that we ban it in the school yards. I cannot accept that. I think our advisory committee is continually looking at --

Mr. Ruston: Here comes a note with the answer.

Mr. J. Reed: Read it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Listen, I have the right to answer the question as I wish.

Mr. Breithaupt: Read us the note.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I will be glad to read the note.

An hon. member: It says it’s a federal problem.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The honourable minister will have lots of time to read the note. The time for oral questions has expired.

REPORT

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Gaunt from the standing social development committee presented a report and moved its adoption.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some brief comments in tabling this report. Commencing on April 23, 1979, the standing social development committee met on numerous occasions to consider the annual report of the Ministry of Health and in specific terms to consider the proposed closure of the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital.

During this period the committee heard testimony from a large number of expert witnesses and studied carefully their expert opinions on the provision of mental health services in Ontario, more particularly at Lakeshore and Queen Street psychiatric hospitals.

After four weeks of intensive public hearings, the committee met on Wednesday, May 16, 1979, at which time it was unable to reach a consensus on recommendations to be made in the committee’s report.

Subsequent to that meeting, the committee has again met and has reached agreement on certain points. This consensus is reflected in the committee’s report tabled today.

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Bolan: First of all, I would like to make reference to the statement the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) made this morning with respect to Field and the program proposed by the government to assist these people who have been displaced from their homes.

I’d like to point out the program he has come up with is reasonable. I think it’s fair and I think it will be of great benefit to these people who were displaced through no fault of their own.

One area he does not mention, and perhaps he could enlighten us about it later on, is he refers to the fact he will meet with the officials of Field Lumber Company to see what can be done to assist them. I may have missed it as I read the statement rather quickly but I don’t see anything in here about any of the other small businesses in Field which were affected by the flood. I’m thinking of at least two or three small grocery stores and that type of small operation which, if he was there, he may have noticed have been completely wiped out.

I realize that you’re dealing with many things in the area and you just can’t possibly do it all at once but the other thing that really concerns me is the bridge which crosses the Sturgeon River and which goes into the small community of Crystal Falls. This bridge was completely wiped out. I have been in contact with Ministry of Transportation and Communications officials to ask what they propose to do about it. At the moment they’re putting a road through on a circuitous route behind Crystal Falls which detours for about 40 miles. Some of the citizens of the community don’t mind this, but it’s an extreme hardship on the children. It means they have to leave home at seven o’clock in the morning, and get back around six o’clock at night.

I realize you have a roads program. I realize you do have a construction program for bridges and what have you, and I would urge you to look into this matter as soon as possible, because you can’t build a bridge inside two or three months. There is much which can go into it, although information is that a Bailey bridge would more than adequately support, or more than adequately assist the situation. Right now, the kids are going across by boats. The river is about 200 yards wide at this point and, believe me, all you need is for one of those boats to capsize and you’ve got real problems.

I will leave that in your hands. I would hope Mr. Aiken, who I believe has been appointed the flood co-ordinator in that area, will look into this matter because I really do believe it is of great interest.

There is one other thing I want to mention. I’m glad to see the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) here because I was going to ask him a question on this point, however, I was not able to ask it during the question period. It has to do with the request made to the Minister of Industry and Tourism by the West Nipissing Tourist Area Association.

These people are in four unorganized townships which have been seriously affected by the flood and some two weeks ago they requested, through the Minister of Industry and Tourism, that the four townships in that area be declared a disaster area. These four unorganized townships are the townships of Loudon, Macpherson, Latchford and Bertram. They are not the townships which were referred to in the statement made by the Premier (Mr. Davis) some three weeks ago when he announced certain unorganized townships as being part of the disaster area. They are not the same unorganized townships. They are separate townships altogether.

Two weeks ago, the association, whose president is a Mr. Rick DeSantis, wrote to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism requesting that those townships as well be declared a disaster area so that they might qualify for assistance. Some of these people are in very dire straits. I might say, the government has responded to the tourist operators on the other side of the lake by declaring the township of North Himsworth and the township of Nipissing disaster areas so that they would be able to qualify for the funds. However these unorganized townships not having any government body through which to speak --

Mr. Wildman: What about local road boards?

Mr. Bolan: -- have not been able to get any results from the government. I believe there is a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, and I would ask the minister to take this up at that time. The lake is the same level right across. If the tourist operators at one end of the lake, i.e. the townships of Nipissing and North Himsworth, are affected by the rise of the lake, the same thing applies to the other side.

My information is that there are some 150 operators who have virtually been put out of business. Unfortunately the damages cannot be assessed until such time as the water recedes. However, we would hope that would happen within the next 30 days. In the meantime I would urge the minister, through his co-ordinator, Mr. Aiken, to get this going.

There was one matter raised by the minister last Friday. Unfortunately I was not able to be present for the reasons which I outlined a few minutes ago; that is to say, I was meeting with the tourist operators in that area. As I read from Instant Hansard, the minister made reference to the $10 million North Bay received as a DREE grant. I would like to read back what he said because there is a correction to be made. I think when I have explained it he will understand.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’m sorry you weren’t here.

Mr. Bolan: “I must say that the Industrial Development Commission in North Bay has done one fantastic job in attracting small industry to this community and that has encouraged both levels of government to move in with this particular development. But what happened? The federal government came back here and said, ‘Look, we are ready to go for a $10 million package, not a $14 million package. Somewhere down the road we will talk about the other $4 million. We would like to get on with just the development of the industrial park, so we are prepared to sign a $10 million package.’

“Well, we looked at it very carefully and, of course, there was the big talk of cutbacks came to the fore. There was some concern ...” When we read Instant Hansard, that’s when we realize how poor our grammar and sentence structure are.

“There was some concern that we might even lose the $10 million package. I recall very vividly going to North Bay and meeting with the chamber of commerce and being roasted, being literally roasted, for my stand in wanting the whole loaf ... and then you went back and you were roasted again, et cetera, et cetera.

I just want to set the record straight. Before the Ministry of Northern Affairs was created there was an agreement prepared to be signed by the federal and the provincial governments. I saw this agreement. This agreement was ready in August 1975. I was on city council at that time and was privy to seeing the agreement which was prepared.

[11: 30]

The $4 million you speak about comes as a result of the interchange at Marshall Avenue. When the original application was made and the original agreement was prepared, it did not include the Marshall Avenue interchange. In other words, at that time the Marshall Avenue interchange was not even considered part of the deal. The agreement at that time called for something like about $9.5 million, $9.6 million. It was not signed. I am not going to say who was responsible for it not being signed then, although there were some overruns on the DREE projects which were going on in the Thunder Bay area. In any event, we didn’t get the dough at that time.

Subsequently, the application was made again or it was looked at again by the parties, and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications could see the day coming when Marshall Avenue would be extended to meet with highway 11, as a result of which an interchange would be required, as well as a level crossing for the railway line which runs through there. They said $4 million would be required for the interchange.

My understanding is the federal government said that interchanges are not part of DREE agreements. They provide assistance for building industrial parks, for putting in hard services, but don’t provide assistance for building roads or interchanges, et cetera.

I remember having discussed this with this minister and he brought to my attention the fact the federal government had insisted on an interchange or a part of a highway being built in the northwestern part of the province where some DREE moneys were expended.

I looked into that and I stand to be corrected, but my information is that that was a necessary part of the entire project; that is to say, that particular interchange or highway in the Thunder Bay area was a necessary part of the entire package. However, the Marshall Avenue interchange was never a necessary part of the entire package. In other words, they could very easily develop the industrial part; put in hard services without that particular interchange being required. The proof of that is it is not included in the construction program for 1979-80. Now we ask the question, if it was insisted on back in 1977 when they were hammering out the agreement, and now it is not included, just where do we stand on that today?

I might say that in the sub-agreement which was signed between the parties, based on the clauses in that agreement, the necessary funds for that particular interchange could be squeezed out. In any event I am sure the good officers of your ministry will press your cousins, now in Ottawa, who I am sure will be of great benefit to you.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This is very enjoyable.

Mr. Bolan: It really is. I am enjoying it too. Incidentally, the other thing I want to mention is that while Darcy McKeough was Treasurer there was no way we were going to get any of these funds unless they provided the $4 million for the interchange. When the used car dealer became Treasurer, he saw the light and said, “My goodness, we have a chance to share in $10 million instead of $14 million. Let’s take the $10 million.”

My federal counterpart, who is no longer the Solicitor General, but is an opposition member now --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am enjoying that too.

Mr. Bolan: Yes -- phoned up the Treasurer the very day after he was appointed. They solved the problem immediately. It was merely a question of an immovable force being replaced with someone who could see the real benefits, and of course the minister was in complete agreement with it because he saw the immediate benefits which would result. In any event, I thought I should draw that to the minister’s attention in order to straighten out the record.

There’s one little area I want to cover before I sit down and we can finally vote on this particular vote, I would imagine. I like this little button that was printed: “On s’amuse dans le nord.” This is when Tom Campbell was the deputy minister. I don’t know how the minister amuses himself, I don’t know whether it is with the deputy minister or what, but in any event, I looked on the back of this little badge and it was printed in southern Ontario. It was made in southern Ontario.

I drew this to the attention of some business people in my area and they wrote to the minister, as a result of which they received offers to put in bids for the printing of these new little badges. They were accepted as bidders and they have felt all along, as I feel, that one of the functions of the ministry is to have many of these things done in northern Ontario.

I want to emphasize that there are facilities in northern Ontario to do many of the things such as promotions, ad agencies and what have you. We do have those in northern Ontario who can do the job as well as in southern Ontario and I do suggest that the government look at them and that they be considered just as well as anyone else. In fact, I am aware of a couple of applications from ad agencies in northern Ontario right now to participate in the many programs which the government has.

That’s all I have to say for the moment.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, if I may respond briefly to the member for Nipissing, I appreciate his remarks with respect to the assistance that the government is prepared to provide to the community of Field and the surrounding area as it relates to their terrible disaster. In fact as I said --

Mr. Wildman: Put the resolution on the record now.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I have it right here. I have the resolution. But I was most impressed in my visit to that community last night with the fortitude and the gutsy attitude of those people who have banded together, and banded together they did, because at the height of that disaster five of those organized municipalities came together and rallied to the cause and provided all those necessary disaster relief programs and facilities in a very co-operative way. I had to say to them last night that they had responded in true northern Ontario spirit.

I have to say they were very pleased with the announcement we made last night to them on the support they are getting. Indeed, the establishment of a co-ordinating role for the Ministry of Northern Affairs, through the assistant deputy minister at Sault Ste. Marie, Herb Aiken, was well received. I think that’s the role that we as a ministry can really play, and we played it in a number of other areas and it certainly is following through in this event.

The problem with the Field Lumber Company is one that we’re going to discuss, as I said in my statement, on Tuesday next. They have some horrendous problems as it relates to their operation, there’s just no question. We think that they are the only employer in Field employing, I think they told me last night, something like 85 or 90 people. We must find a way to get them back into business. It was a sad sight to see lumber strewn up and down the Sturgeon River and logs being pulled out of the bush so to speak. I think the owner was paying individuals $3 per log to pick them up and return them to the mill.

With respect to the retail establishments, this I think would be handled under the Disaster Relief Fund that will be established there. The committee is certainly very concerned with the hotel and the restaurant and the barber shop and a few other things. They will be looked after under that very active committee that has been established. I might say further, in connection with the member’s comment with regard to Crystal Falls, we spent some considerable time last night discussing that particular problem. People were there, they expressed some concern, as the member has correctly pointed out, with regard to the students who are being taken across the river system in very small boats. In fact, today they are out looking for a much larger boat to transport those students across, a boat that has all the safety requirements to make sure that there isn’t a disaster following the one we just had. That will be looked after.

It was my understanding in my discussions last night with the various officials that a Bailey bridge would be constructed. I hope that will be in place by late August. We are looking for something to look after the problems of transportation out of the Crystal Falls area in the immediate future. They have to travel something like 45 miles around the river system, but if they could cut across, it reduces that mileage to about 14 miles.

I noted your comment with respect to the other areas that are not covered in the original announcement. I am going to ask my assistant deputy minister, Herb Aiken, to give us a report on the extent of damages in those areas because he will be on top of the issue.

We will make a decision after that time, once we have had his report, as it relates to those tourist operators who may be affected and have not been included in the disaster relief package.

As I mentioned in my statement, there will be a meeting tomorrow morning in Field. We have asked the reeve and the council, through a good publicity program, to bring all the people together. The officials from a number of ministries, headed by the flood co-ordinator, will be there to answer any specific questions because there are a lot of questions. I had to make it clear to them last night that while we were coming in with what I think is a good positive program, one that will not see any direct hardship passed on to each individual family or to specific families, they will have to carry some burden.

They accepted that. They said: “This is great. We fully understand that.” The upheaval alone is part of the problems that they will suffer. I want to put on the record a resolution that was passed last night by the corporation of the township of Field. It was handed to me just as I was leaving that meeting. It was dated May 24, 1979, and was moved by Bernard Préseault and seconded by Pierre Langevin.

It reads: “The Field council is very appreciative and impressed by the fine cooperation extended tonight by the Honourable Leo Bernier and also the provincial government as a result of the Field disaster.” That is signed by the reeve himself. I think that’s indicative of the appreciation that they have expressed.

Mr. Nixon: That resolution should be copied and mailed to all the members from the north who are not here.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think it will be. On that point, I wish the members opposite had been there last night to hear the reaction of the community with respect to the concern and the very positive attitude that was taken by this government. The fact that the Premier, took time out and visited that area personally did not go unnoticed.

Mr. Nixon: He flew up in his own plane.

Mr. Bolan: You flew up in a government plane to get there too. I wasn’t even asked to go with you. Why didn’t you ask me to go up there with you?

Mr. Nixon: Certainly.

Mr. Bolan: Then you stand in this House and say you wish the opposition members would have been there.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) was right there. You weren’t here yesterday.

Mr. Bolan: Come on now!

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You weren’t here last Friday.

Mr. Bolan: Be honest.

Hon. Mr. Bender: You were not here.

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Chairman, the record will show that I was here yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Nixon: That’s correct.

Mr. Bolan: And last night. Stop playing games.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am not playing any games. I am just pointing out to you the appreciation of this community.

Mr. Bolan: Fine. Then don’t say that you wish the opposition members would have been there last night when they weren’t given an opportunity to be there. I don’t have a government plane at my disposal as you have.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am not arguing why you weren’t there. I never mentioned it. You mentioned it. You must be oversensitive.

Mr. Nixon: You did. You brought it to public attention when you said you were sorry he wasn’t there.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: After he brought it up.

Mr. Bolan: Where is crazy Eddie Havrot today? Why isn’t he here listening to what you are saying right now?

Mr. Nixon: Where are your colleagues from the north this morning?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Where is your colleague?

Mr. Nixon: He is getting married?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Today? No, he is not.

Mr. Nixon: Very soon.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He is getting married. There is only one over here.

Mr. Bolan: Where is crazy Eddie? Is he giving advice to some Indians up in Bear Island?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In this instance, I can look after the problems of northern Ontario. So much for the Field disaster.

[11:45]

Mr. Bolan: How about the Tory disaster over there?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: What about the Liberal disaster last Tuesday over there? Believe it or not, fellows, you are an extinct species, a very extinct species.

Did you hear what Pierre Berton said?

Mr. Bolan: Who?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Pierre Berton.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Gentlemen, we are dealing with vote 701, not last Tuesday.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am not apt to quote Pierre Berton too many times, except in this instance.

I want to mention the Ontario DREE agreement to which the member made some reference. I just wanted to point out to him again, the $14 million package is the one the former Treasurer and I pulled together. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications did see the necessity of having the Marshall Avenue overpass as part of the whole industrial park complex. There was no doubt in their minds that it is needed. Now, of course, we have set it aside for a period, and the agitation is starting again for the development of that overpass.

I was in agreement with the Treasurer at that time, that we should hang in there for the $14 million. As I said to the people in North Bay, and the honourable member was present for those comments, “We had better take the whole loaf rather than just half the loaf.” The honourable member agreed with the chamber of commerce and others at that meeting, saying, “Let’s take the $10 million, because God knows what will happen on May 22.”

Mr. Bolan: We didn’t trust you.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is right. Now they are back on our doorstep.

I want to make a comment about the necessity for the overpass. You said the federal government didn’t think it was a necessity, yet, during those discussions, the Honourable Marcel Lessard made it very clear they were prepared to include the cost of that overpass into another subsidiary agreement, to tie it on or piggyback it on something. They were aware there was a real necessity there. To say it wasn’t really necessary in regard to the industrial park development, I don’t think is entirely correct.

Nevertheless, I have to say to you things have changed in Ottawa. I suppose the former federal member will have less influence than ever now so we won’t be able to lean on him for any support. It may not be necessary. I think there may be more sensitivity in Ottawa today than there has been in the past.

Mr. Wildman: Surely the government in Ottawa will listen to opposition members.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Nevertheless, it is a sad situation. It is a sad situation for North Bay not to get the whole package. That is the point I am trying to make.

Mr. Bolan: Why didn’t you include that in the federal works program?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Why should we? It is part of the whole package. It is a package.

Mr. Bolan: Why is it you say it is a sad thing when we didn’t have it included in the federal works program?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If the federal government at that time were sincere in doing things for northern Ontario under the DREE agreement, it would be there.

Mr. Bolan: You are the ones being insincere.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, we are not. We were anxious to have it there, but you back-pedalled. You were getting a little nervous about losing everything. We weren’t. That’s right. I accept that. Nevertheless, we will have to deal with that problem down the road, and again I hope we will have a more sensitive group in Ottawa than we had in the past.

In connection with the member’s comments relating to our concern and our purchases of different items, we are very sensitive about that. I think you are aware of that. In fact, the ministry information newsletter is printed in northern Ontario, as are a number of items we use in the course of our administration.

You are quite right in saying ad agencies are located in northern Ontario. We will be selecting one of those which has submitted a proposal. Again, they will be from northern Ontario, because we strongly feel, as it should be, that being a regional ministry related to northern Ontario, we should be using northern Ontario people to get that northern Ontario attitude. We will certainly continue with that attitude in the future.

Mr. Nixon: I just wanted the opportunity to make some comments under vote 701. Before I get into the specific point I want to raise, I just want to respond to the minister’s comments about my colleague from Nipissing not being at this meeting. Actually, my colleague from Nipissing has done a magnificent job in his important role as the Liberal Party critic of the Ministry of Northern Affairs. He has a double job, in that he is also our critic for the Ministry of Natural Resources, whose estimates begin as soon as these estimates are finished. So he is going to have a very heavy and onerous responsibility before this package of estimates is completed.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s not correct.

Mr. Nixon: I am just telling the minister that he is the critic.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) is the critic of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mr. Nixon: The minister does not read all his press releases.

Mr. Chairman, I had some concern at the time this ministry was established. Not being a formal student of history, but following the events in this province for many years, I note that this has gone in a cycle. There have been other occasions when the government of the day has decided to hive off the responsibility for affairs in the northern part of this province to a special ministry. Allan Lawrence was the previous tsar of the expenditure of northern money and the handout of bridges, overpasses and things like that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You call these things handouts? That’s a southern Ontario attitude. We are entitled to them.

Mr. Nixon: Then we went back to a more general approach whereby the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, the Ministry of Natural Resources and so on had the same responsibility in northern Ontario as they have in southern and eastern Ontario. Now we have gone to probably a more extreme position.

My colleague from Nipissing probably does not agree with what I am saying but, as a southerner, as a citizen of Canada and a resident of Ontario, I resent the attitude in this House that puts northern Ontario off by itself with its own budget and its own minister, with us more or less saying, “Nothing really happens up there of significance to the people down here.” In other words, it is almost like a province set apart.

The minister mentioned the fact that my colleague had not attended a certain meeting. He said, “Wasn’t it too bad he wasn’t up there to look at the flood at Field?” when the Premier in his executive jet, paid for with taxpayers’ money, flew over, settled down somewhere, shook hands all around and came back.

Here we are, considering the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs -- and I will tell the minister, I am not proud of the attendance of the Liberal Party here.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You shouldn’t be.

Mr. Nixon: I shouldn’t be. But on the Conservative side the members absent are as follows: the members for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy), Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot), Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Ramsay), Parry Sound (Mr. Maeck) -- and that is northern Ontario, because they get $10 licences -- Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) and Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle). They are not here. The member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) and the member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch) are here; they are always here. It may be a reflection on their other responsibilities but I do not believe that. I think we are elected to be here in the House, and the absence of northern members concerns me.

I have been making a list. The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) is here in his capacity as the New Democratic Party critic. But, of his colleagues, the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa), who was here a moment ago, is not in his seat right now; nor are the members for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) and Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: Wait a minute! You just said I was here.

Mr. Nixon: I am sorry; the member for Algoma is here. He is on a special list -- a list of one.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk drawing my attention to the fact that there is not a quorum?

Mr. Nixon: I am talking about the policy -- Mr Wildman: Where is the member for Rainy River?

Mr. Nixon: The member for Rainy River was here a moment ago and may come right back in. He is being married very shortly and is out making some last-minute arrangements.

Here is the member for Sudbury, and I certainly want the record to show that.

The point is this: By setting the affairs of northern Ontario apart in a special ministry, everybody on the Tory side says, “The member for Kenora will look after it,” because they love him in the north. He goes around throwing money out the back end of his plane, and everybody cannot wait for him to fly over town, whether it is because of a flood, a bridge or some other blooming thing. We do not mind voting money in this Legislature for the support of northern projects.

In my former capacity as leader of the Liberal Party, I have been in many northern communities. I have said this before, but the first time I ever saw the minister he was standing in the middle of the main sheet of Hudson; it was not even paved then. We were making a legislative progress through northern Ontario. We were visiting sawmills and going down the mines. We were using government planes -- actually using them as members of the Legislature -- to see what is up there. We flew over the forest. We went to Trout Lake, Fort Severn, Attawapiskat, Albany, Moosonee and all the places in between.

Mr. Ashe: How was the flying?

Mr. Nixon: All right. So he says we haven’t been back since. It’s true that many of us have gone up there on little fishing expeditions, to visit relatives, to attend weddings, that sort of thing. Maybe a few of us have even gone to political meetings which is fine, but this minister has not lived up to the traditions of his predecessors. Usually the Minister of Natural Resources has used his colossal budget and organization, his fleet of aircraft, boats and cars and his treasury full of money, to give the members of the Legislature a chance to see these things in the north.

I am not talking about going from town to town, having municipal dinners paid for by the provincial treasury to listen to the mayor and corporation welcome us and to hear the local Tory spokesman talk about what a great job they are doing. They do plenty of that, and to be fair in an unfair situation do it quite successfully. But it is a shame that so many people in the southern part of the province, and in this city, think about northern Ontario as some never-never land. There is as much chance of them going to Tibet as there is to Kapuskasing. I think that is very unfortunate. The actual geographic centre of this province is Kapuskasing, which is why the name of the town came to mind.

As I say, I don’t know whether we should even think about one of these great, formal, legislative progresses where we all go through and stuff ourselves with local goodies of all descriptions, solid and liquid. Certainly, we can do that in our own time, but there should be a good opportunity --

Mr. Wildman: You can’t get people’s beer down here.

Mr. Nixon: Northern lager. There should be a good opportunity, however, for the members of the Legislature, at least, to go in small groups to a lumber camp; to go down in a mine at Elliott Lake and see what they’re doing with our $7 billion; to go up to Moosonee once again to see that fine community and to see how government policy has been so inadequate in meeting the needs of that community; and to see some of the far northern places too.

Maybe the minister can’t as Kelso Roberts did, undertake to take the whole Legislature to Fort Severn, but he did it and we were well received there. We ate beans and homemade bread and talked to everybody around who would stand still. We slept on the floor of a school in Trout Lake and we ran footraces by the light of the almost midnight sun. That was a great experience for us. We had a chance to fish -- and why shouldn’t we? After all, we’re very much concerned with the tourist industry and that sort of thing.

I would say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the absence of so many members and the presence of so many empty chairs is an indication of the general level of interest.

It’s Friday morning, but during question period there were lots of members here from all parties. Now it’s Northern Affairs and we’re not interested in it. It’s sort of like when we do the agriculture estimates. At least the farmers are there, but when we’re doing Northern Affairs’ estimates even the northern members aren’t here. They all leave it up to Leo.

And while I have the greatest regard and personal good feelings for the minister, that is not good enough. I think the minister has to take the responsibility for injecting some interest and concern for northern matters. I’m not sure that he should organize a tour for the whole House, but there ought to be a formal procedure, not where we use our legislative travel allowance to go and walk around Thunder Bay and shake hands with people on the street or something like that, but to actually go and see the things that are northern, that we deal with here in the money that we vote, that we deal with here in the debates, such as they are, on northern matters.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: May I respond briefly to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk? I appreciate his becoming involved in these estimates and am very much aware of his interest in northern Ontario. Certainly when leader of his party he made it a point to go into that part of the province on a regular basis and became very familiar with the geography, with our problems, and I have to admit showed a real personal interest in northern Ontario which is reflected in his comments today. I’m most impressed that he has remembered so well that great trip to Hudson. I think maybe that was one of the highlights of your visit.

[12:00]

Mr. Nixon: They paved the street right after that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, they paved the street and we have the housing we asked for. He will recall the sign across the street.

Mr. Nixon: I remember.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: “We have industry, sir, we need housing.”

Mr. Nixon: I think it’s the “sir” that did it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We’ve got housing. We’ve got paved streets. It’s all because of the positive action of the government of Ontario, the Tory government of Ontario, which has responded to those needs and those requests.

Mr. Nixon: But the cynical would say they bought the seat of Kenora.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I get a little nervous when I hear members from southern Ontario speak about “handouts.” They spoke about handouts for roads and bridges.

Mr. Bolan: Have you got a better word for it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In northern Ontario they’re not handouts. We have every right to expect our roads and our bridges and our schools and other buildings, and the other things that are taken for granted here in southern Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: We vote the money with enthusiasm. We don’t think you spend enough on those roads.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: But because it’s northern Ontario it’s a “handout.” We’re not poor country cousins in the north. We have every bit as much right to the things you have here and take for granted; we should have them there.

Mr. Wildman: That goes for the hospitals too.

Mr. Nixon: I used to live in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s what we’re fighting for and that is one of the reasons this government has established a separate ministry to focus attention on those very special and unique needs in northern Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: The government paid me $2,800 to teach school up there.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: You were overpaid.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I make no apology for our parochial attitude, if you want to call it that, to try to get the amenities that are taken for granted here in southern Ontario.

The reference to a colossal budget would not go over well in northern Ontario, I have to say that to the member. As northerners, and I am sure northern members will agree with me, we need much more than we have today. I keep impressing this on the Premier and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). Our budget is quite healthy and it has been increased much more rapidly than those of other ministries. I hope that continues, so that someday we may have a colossal budget for northern Ontario and we could look after such things as the Marshall Avenue overpass and a few other things the member for Nipissing would like.

Mr. Nixon: What is it, $140 million?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s $141 million. It has been going up quite substantially each year.

We started with $91 million about three years ago.

The trip to northern Ontario is something I’ve always been supportive of. In fact I had the pleasure of organizing the last trip. As Minister of Natural Resources I sent a questionnaire to every member of the Legislature and I received 80 or 81 responses saying they would join us on a tour. We had all the transportation arranged, the trains, the buses and the airplanes; the accommodation was laid on.

Out of 80 or 81 members who agreed to attend only 30 showed up. The cost to the taxpayers at that time was substantial. I think it was in excess of $130,000 or $160,000 for that tour. I was very disappointed, and I think I speak for members on all sides of the House, with the response at that particular time. I know there were specific reasons. I think there was a federal election called just about that time and there were some other involvements members were concerned about.

I have to agree with the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that those members who are really interested -- maybe the standing resources development committee is the group that should go to northern Ontario; it has a direct and sincere concern and interest in the affairs of northern Ontario.

There is the member for Rainy River. Have you looked after your marriage problems? Somebody said you were having some difficulty, that you were out making final arrangements for some event that is going to occur in a few weeks and that’s why you weren’t here. He was trying to be helpful.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Oh yes.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: He’s not even married and talking about the problems.

Hon. Mr. Bender: We wish you well anyway.

The honourable member has pointed out that each member does get four trips a year to any place in the province. They do get passes on the Ontario Northland Railway if they wish to go up to Moosonee. In fact if they want an itinerary I’m sure the honourable members from northern Ontario would be glad to assist me in setting up such an itinerary for the southern Ontario members, so that they could see the mining development, the forestry development, the tourism development and the other developments that have occurred and should occur in northern Ontario. I want to thank the member again for his comments. They are always given in a very constructive and positive way. As this ministry moves ahead I’m sure they will be continuing in that vein.

Mr. Wildman: I want to follow up on a couple of comments that were made by the Liberal critic, the former Liberal leader and the minister.

In relation to the numbers of people who aren’t here and the lack of interest, I wonder if perhaps one of the reasons for that is the very fact that it is difficult for many members to understand exactly what this ministry is doing. The ministry is a co-ordinating ministry, as the minister says. However, on May 14 my colleague from Port Arthur stated: “What worries me a bit about this discussion we have had today is that it does not seem to me that you, as Minister of Northern Affairs, consider your ministry should be the lead ministry in every single activity that takes place in Northern Ontario. I think it should be. I think if your ministry is really worth its salt the ministry should be the one that is telling the Ministry of Health what should be happening with the small hospitals that my colleague from Algoma referred to.

“This ministry should be telling the Ministry of Natural Resources what it should be doing in developing the single-industry towns in northern Ontario because it is your ministry that is supposed to have the overall view and the capability and should have the will to really develop the north as we all know the north should be developed.”

The reply from the minister at that time was that he didn’t share those views. In fact, he said: “I don’t think we should be the kingpins in northern Ontario. We have a co-ordinating role. We have a role to bring matters to the attention of other ministries that have the programs and policies in place. Our job is to change some of those policies to reflect northern attitudes.”

It seems to me that is a rather nebulous role and that is one of the reasons why many of the members, including northern members, may have some difficulty in dealing with what the ministry is doing. Sometimes I think that is a problem the members of the ministry themselves often have. That is not necessarily a criticism, but it is one thing that makes it rather difficult to deal with this ministry.

I have just a couple of short points. In relation to the matter raised by the member for Nipissing with regard to the bridge, the minister replied that they hope to have a Bailey bridge by August. Can the minister explain why it takes from May until August to install a Bailey bridge? During wartime if it took that long for the army to install Bailey bridges across rivers, we would have awfully slow advances and retreats. It seems to me we can put Bailey bridges up in a very short time, if we put our minds to it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You can put them up an awful lot faster if you are retreating.

Mr. Wildman: In my riding there is a road into Dubreuilville. I emphasize that this is the portion of that road which is under the jurisdiction of the improvement district of Dubreuilville, the municipality, rather than the portion of the road which is an industrial road and which is under the jurisdiction of the company. There was a bridge washed out during the recent high water in northern Ontario. They are now in the process of negotiating with MTC to get a Bailey bridge and they certainly don’t expect it to take until August to have it installed. What they are mainly concerned about now is how much they are going to have to pay as opposed to MTC. They would like to see MTC give them far more than 80 per cent subsidy on that construction. I really wonder why it takes that long to build a Bailey bridge.

In relation to the role of the ministry in terms of co-ordinating -- again that term “co-ordinating” -- the response to the flood disaster, this is something the ministry should get involved with, expediting the installation of these bridges and perhaps looking at the possibility of assisting. If MTC is unwilling or unable to give a higher subsidy rate than 80 per cent, perhaps this ministry should help communities such as the one my colleague from Nipissing was referring to.

I’d like to hearken back to a couple of things I asked about in my lead-off, which the minister didn’t get a chance to reply to. I asked him about the three-year program for exploration for minerals that the minister announced when we held a debate on the establishment of the ministry. I’d like to know what progress is being made on that, if any. Does it indeed refer simply to the Ministry of Natural Resources study on aggregates in the north? If it does, while that’s a good thing I suppose, it’s hardly a response to the need for further exploration in mining in northern Ontario.

The other thing I wanted to clarify was some comments made by the minister with regard to freight rates and the letter written by Mr. Korpela to a number of newspapers in northern Ontario. I think he misquoted the Minister for Transportation and Communication (Mr. Snow), where he indicated that he didn’t recall meeting with Mr. Korpela and making those comments. In fact, the minister should be aware that at the time of the introduction of the bills concerning deregulation, while opposition was expressed by members of both opposition parties, at the same time both parties made clear to the government and to the minister that they would accept a change in the North Bay restriction. I think the Liberal critic will testify to this. We would accept that change if the government would introduce it alone without the other measures that were part of the ministry’s proposals, which the select committee on the highway transportation of goods recommended against.

For some reason the minister didn’t take us up on that. He didn’t come back with the kind of legislation; he just forgot about it. To say that the NDP and “some misguided Liberal,” which I think was the term Mr. Korpela used, were the ones responsible for not bringing in the change on the North Bay restriction is a little bit facetious.

Mr. T. P. Reid: So the Liberals line up with the NDP now?

Mr. Wildman: I don’t know, considering the last federal election in Rainy River, where there was an interesting contest up there between the Liberal-Labour and the NDP.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Liberal-Labour came through again.

Mr. Wildman: With some sweat, yes.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I’ll tell you I wouldn’t be proud of the NDP campaign in that riding.

Mr. Wildman: I certainly was happy to see that we gave the Liberal-Labour candidate a run for his money and perhaps deducted a little of the Labour from that tag.

Seriously though, in terms of the so-called co-ordinating function, I attended a meeting this morning with the minister. He was very hospitable and provided us with nice coffee. Hopefully, we’re going to be able to get something for the delegation from Hornepayne that has a problem that affects other ministries. This ministry is going to look into the problem and deal with the other ministries to try to sort out something.

There is a community in my area which I think would be a real test for the ministry, if the ministry decided to take upon itself the job of co-ordinating the further development of that community. I’m talking about Missanabie. I mentioned Missanabie in my lead-off. The minister knows that we’ve had correspondence about that community over the past year or so. I said in my lead-off that I got one of the most serious replies I’ve ever received from the minister in a response to a letter I sent about Missanabie.

The minister knows there have been some housing problems and difficulty in obtaining lots for people who want to build in Missanabie on a permanent basis. There has been a real mixup with regard to titles and who owns what land in Missanabie. It is a very old community where land seems to have been exchanged in the past without registry of deeds and so on. Some people are paying provincial land tax for land they don’t think they own and some are not paying taxes on land they think they own. It’s that kind of situation. The Ministry of Revenue and the Ministry of Natural Resources have been involved, but they don’t seem to be able to sort it out. Until they sort it out, it is going to be very difficult to obtain land.

[12:15]

The Ministry of the Environment has been involved with a water problem. Dog Lake has been polluted from time to time. The Austin Lumber Company that operated there at one time was blamed at one point for some pollution. Private septic systems also seem to be at fault, so the Ministry of the Environment has proposed some assistance under their new program of up to 75 per cent for private water systems and sewage systems.

I had some correspondence with the minister to which I would like to refer, in which he said: “A review of the economic prospects of the community indicate there is not at present, nor is there likely to be in the foreseeable future, any significant pressure for additional housing lots for expansion in the community. If this situation were to change substantially, it would be of course appropriate to review their requirements at the time.”

What the minister was referring to is the future of the lumber company in that community. Since I received that letter, as the minister knows, the mill changed hands and subsequently burned to the ground. Many of the employees who worked in the mill were employed in Chapleau, but that employment seems to be coming to an end now. The new owners have indicated they are looking at the possibility of rebuilding because they are afraid their limits are too distant from their mills in Chapleau.

I think the people in Missanabie are very concerned about the future of their community and their own individual and collective futures. I think this is a real opportunity. All of the ministries involved -- the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Revenue, the Ministry of the Environment, I suppose even TEIGA and the Ministry of Northern Affairs itself with its proposal for a local services board -- had a meeting up there. All of these ministries are involved.

I think this minister should take hold of this situation and say: “This is an opportunity for us to show what we can do for a community that has a lot of problems but is one that has been there for a long time. It is a vibrant community which obviously is not just dependent on the lumber industry but is also very much involved in the tourist industry and the railroads.” He should say: “We will do something for this community.” I would like to know if you can give us some idea of what you are intending to do in that situation.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, if I may respond briefly to the honourable member’s comments, he referred to our ministry’s co-ordinating role. As I pointed out on many occasions, this is a new thrust, for a ministry in the government to co-ordinate other ministries. I have said it before and I will say it again, it’s not an easy role. Fixed programs and fixed policies are entrenched, and as northerners we know many of those policies and programs have been designed for southern Ontario. They don’t apply in northern Ontario. It’s our job in our new role as co-ordinators to see if we can change, adjust, and get a new direction in some of those policies and programs to really fit what we need in northern Ontario.

What you saw this morning in our discussions with the reeve of Hornepayne is the approach we like to take. I think the town of Hornepayne has a very special and unique problem as it relates to a northern Ontario municipality. As you saw, we are most anxious to sit down and see if we can co-ordinate the input; go to the other ministries and say to them in a very positive way that there is a special requirement. We intend to do that wherever that kind of a problem surfaces. From time to time we will be co-ordinating not only before the fact but sometimes after the fact, after the programs and after the jobs have been completed.

The honourable member was inquiring about our exploration program and our assistance to various ministries. I just want to put on the record a number of programs we have which I know will be of interest to him. I will take it right off my notes here because they are quite extensive.

I am particularly pleased that the honourable member for Timiskaming is here to share with us in the examination of these estimates because his area is one of the areas in which we are doing some very extensive mineral exploration.

The programs include the northern Ontario geological surveys program. This is a reconnaissance study of the terrain as to its engineering characteristics and aggregate capability for geological, geophysical and geochemical surveys, mineral deposit studies and the development and introduction of new data-handling techniques. It is a six-year program to supplement the provincial geoscience data base, to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of, and otherwise stimulate, mineral exploration by the private sector in northern Ontario. This year alone we will be putting about $1,735,000 into that program.

Another program is the Northern Affairs geological surveys program. This is a reconnaissance study of the engineering terrain characteristics, and the aggregate capability of northern Ontario as a basis for planning and development, and to evaluate the deposits of the Thunder Bay area. It is a three-year program of geological and geophysical surveys and mineral deposit studies to evaluate the potential for fossil fuels in the Moose River basin, and to stimulate mineral exploration in the Red Lake, Marsh Lake and Burntbush areas. This year $337,000 is being spent on this program.

These programs are being carried out by the Ministry of Natural Resources, and you might want to discuss the further intricate details with that ministry.

Another resource development program is the northern industrial mineral study program. That is a five-year program to supplement the other program I just referred to. It will survey non-metallic mineral deposits and evaluate the potential and encourage development of deposits of industrial minerals and rocks in northern Ontario. This year we are puffing $92,000 into that program.

Another one of extreme interest to myself is the electromagnetic survey of the Greenstone belt in the Red Lake area. This is to stimulate exploration activity in that part of northwest Ontario. This is a new project the Ministry of Natural Resources is undertaking and $200,000 is going into that program.

Another one is the airborne geophysical survey of the Lake Superior area, measuring the magnetic and electromagnetic properties of the area around Wawa and Michipicoten. The member for Algoma will be interested in that. This is to provide a uniform data base for mineral potential studies for that area, which is a new project. This year we will be spending about $100,000.

In the James Bay lowlands we will be doing additional lignite deposit surveys, to determine the potential of the Onakawana lignite deposits. We will spend $25,000 this year, and this is a continuation of work --

Mr. Bolan: What do you expect to do with $25,000?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No. We have spent $500,000; this is the windup of that program.

Mr. Bolan: Then is that it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes. This is the windup for that one. There is nothing in it for next year.

Mr. Bolan: What happens then? Nothing?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh yes. We have found additional lignite deposits already in the Moose basin, and we are waiting for the energy requirements of the province to change. Hydro is very much involved with the Onakawana and so on. So until those requirements change we won’t see too much activity there.

The member for Timiskaming was very instrumental in getting a five-year comprehensive program of geological and geophysical studies going on in his area. That is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of, and otherwise stimulate, mineral exploration by the private sector in the Kirkland Lake area. That is a very ambitious program. This year we will be spending about $487,000, and next year an additional $400,000 in the Kirkland Lake area.

The member for Rainy River will be interested in the Atikokan geological surveys program for that area. It is a three-year comprehensive program of geological, geophysical and geochemical surveys and mineral deposit studies, to encourage the private sector in mineral exploration in the vicinity of Atikokan. The funds are provided to the Ministry of Natural Resources for this program, which will be going on for the next three years.

Those are some indications of what we are trying to do with our funds to stimulate further activity in the mining industry, providing the geological information to the private sector so that they can pick up the information and move ahead. I am particularly pleased that we have moved in this direction. I think we are all concerned about the lack of mining activity in northern Ontario.

Members will notice in the list I have gone through we have concentrated on those areas that need this type of survey, that need this information: the Atikokans, the Red Lakes, the Kirkland Lakes. Those are the areas where we know there are mineral deposits, and the experts say that is where we should be looking for additional deposits. And that is the route we are going.

The honourable member made some mention of the deregulation of the trucking industry. It is something I personally have supported and will continue to support. The Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) was very strong in putting his case forward, although the opposition parties felt at that time they could not go along with him.

Mr. Wildman: Neither did the select committee.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There are reasons behind that and they are all political; the member knows that as well as I do. There was a lack of concern for northern Ontario in that report. It is obvious we cannot go that route. I can say the issue is not a dead one. The North Bay restriction issue is not a dead issue. Members will be hearing more about that.

Mr. Mackenzie: There may be some sense to it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think that as the members look at these changes, if they are really sincere about northern Ontario and doing something about the problems that exist up there, then I hope they will take this into consideration in their deliberations, because I think they are things we need to create more competition and lower the cost of freight rates, because as I have said many times it is freight rates that really affect the developing economy of northern Ontario.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk to the minister this morning about one problem specifically. I won’t repeat my speech about the lack of overall planning and direction for northern Ontario and one-industry communities at this time, but I am concerned about a program that was put to the Minister of Northern Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture and Food almost three years ago now by the Rainy River branch of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. It has to do with drainage problems and land clearing in the Rainy River district.

As a Toronto member, Mr. Chairman, you may not be aware, but we have a substantial farming area in the Rainy River district. The minister himself has farm communities around Dryden particularly, and of course there are some outside Thunder Bay. But the people in the area of Rainy River, through their organization of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, presented a brief to the minister just before the last election, or even substantially before that, in which they gave a detailed proposal of land clearing and a drainage project that would provide a great number of jobs and improve the farming area and the ability to produce in the Rainy River area west of the town of Fort Frances.

Since that time the minister, for some reason unbeknownst to me, has been dragging his feet on coming up with any kind of answers. All right, the minister indicates it is a matter of money. But we have had how many studies on this kind of thing? The minister indicates it is a lack of money, but surely this is a program that will provide immediate and concrete results by way of employment and by way of a lasting benefit to the Rainy River district?

[12:30]

If I could give you just a little background and history, Mr. Chairman, the Rainy River district was settled just before the turn of the century when people came up by way of river boat along the Rainy River. They were homesteaders and they cleared the land which involved a lot of muskeg and a lot of very wet area. Their problems have not been particularly solved since that time.

The minister has a report, or two or three -- I do not know how many -- by a fellow named John Kuntze, who was on a contract, if I am not mistaken, to do a study of the proposal put forward by the Rainy River Federation of Agriculture.

I have seen, on occasion, copies of these reports. The reports give the history of what has happened in regard to drainage and land clearing in the Rainy River district. It’s almost the same as the problem that we have with the forest industry: The government has had for years and years, going back as far as 1910, reports from the northern affairs branch of the former Department of Lands and Forests, the former Department of Highways or, in some cases, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food -- or whoever had the responsibility -- but the problems have been the same; they have been outlined, and yet we still do not have a solution.

In 1944, a report was made to the Minister of Agriculture and Food in this regard. It listed four problems, and outlined them specifically, in regard to land clearing and drainage:

“(a) financial inability of the sparsely settled municipalities to undertake any scheme of sufficient scope to provide drainage outlets to carry waters off the farms;

“(b) lack of adequate machinery for drainage on individual farms and for providing outlets;

“(c) failure of the Highways Department to carry their road ditches to proper outlets and, thereby, running water off the roads on to the farms and flooding large areas of arable land every spring; and

“(d) need for opening up natural watercourses and clearing them of dead trees and debris in order to allow a natural flow of drainage water off the land.”

The minister is supposed to be co-ordinating. Along with my colleague who last spoke, I am a little concerned about his response to a question about what the minister’s role is, but we will not go into that. If the minister is supposed to be co-ordinating, it seems to me that he should be getting together the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, the Ministry of Natural Resources and conservation authorities to try to resolve this problem.

I appreciate that money is a problem but, by the time we have studied it to death, we could probably have at least started on the problem of responding to the OFA brief and providing some employment in clearing the land. The minister had responses from the CES, the Community Employment Strategy group, supporting the scheme. I gather, although I have not seen it, that there has been a final report. Perhaps the minister could indicate whether he has a final report from Mr. Kuntze, or whoever is doing it in his ministry, on the problem. But the problem is not being solved. Every spring, for instance, we have a problem with La Vallee River, but the municipality is too small to handle it on its own.

A few years ago I attempted to get some of the small communities in the Rainy River district to get together to form conservation authorities but, even in concert, they still had to come up with 25 per cent of the cost, which they could not do; they are very small, and their tax base is relatively small. Perhaps if the minister would go ahead with a comprehensive program for the Rainy River district, that would increase the value of the farms and the production, and we could afford to expand the tax base to contribute to these programs.

The minister’s colleague, now the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson), who, if I recall correctly, headed up the land drainage committee, was in my area during the time of those sittings. The municipality of La Vallee made a representation to that committee. The select committee, although it was not dealing particularly with that, made a recommendation that assistance be given to clear that waterway to prevent the drainage problem spilling over on to farmers’ land.

Another problem mentioned in this report from 1944 which continues to this day is the fact that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications does not maintain the ditches and has not provided a system that will take the water right off the land and right down into the watercourse. The ditches end somewhere -- nowhere actually, but they wind up sometimes overflowing onto somebody else’s land. There is no comprehensive scheme, no comprehensive package, to deal with this.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s brief -- and the minister probably knows it as well as I -- asked for a lot of money. I think they were talking about $17 million. I agree that’s a lot of money in days of budget restraint, but it is a program that would put money back into the government’s pocket by way of the employment opportunities it would provide, and the increased assessment and taxes and the increased ability, in fact, for those farms to produce.

We had a diatribe from the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) last week about the DREE agreement. I would hope -- and this is a question, as well, for the minister -- that in the package the province is preparing to take to the federal government this would be one of the items. The minister isn’t nodding or shaking his head, but I’m sure he will respond in the affirmative. I would hope so.

This is a problem that has gone on. It’s affecting the district very badly and if the program of the OFA or some modification of same was implemented it would be of great benefit to the local people and to the economy in the Rainy River district. It has been dragging on for three years. It can’t all be a matter of money. I wonder if the minister can respond in some way, indicating if this is a matter coming up for DREE, whether he has a final report on the figure, whether he has a dollar figure on the cost, if there is any possibility that we can get on with this program?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, the member for Rainy River has had correspondence from me on this particular subject. I know it’s near and dear to his heart. He is quite right in pointing out that it is a substantial amount of money. We’re concerned about it from a northern development point of view. I think the best way I could answer the honourable member would be to read into the record -- because I know he will want to send copies of this debate to people in the Rainy River area -- two letters I sent to him that clearly outline all the various points to which he made reference this morning.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I’m not satisfied with those answers.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The first letter is dated

April 4, 1979:

“Dear Mr. Reid,

“I refer to your recent request for information regarding the agricultural drainage study in northwestern Ontario. The field work for this study, which covered the three major agricultural areas in northwestern Ontario, was completed in October 1977. Since that time, I am happy to say that because of the attention focused on the problem by Mr. John Kuntze and the discussions he had with farmers a number of positive initiatives have taken place.

“In the summer of 1977, 10-acre tile demonstration plots were installed on two farms in the Thunder Bay area with the assistance of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Northern Affairs. Early in 1978, a course for tiling contractors was held by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food in Dryden, and farmers from three agricultural areas attended.

“One tile machine is now in use in the Dryden area and a trenching machine has been purchased, converted and is now in use by a consortium of farmers in the Rainy River area. With assistance from the northern Ontario agricultural incentive program, one scraper was purchased by a Rainy River farmer for field levelling. I understand four more farmers are also preparing to purchase scrapers.

“The Rainy River Association of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is now heading the drive to improve drainage. In response to their initiatives, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and, where appropriate, the Ministry of Northern Affairs are providing further assistance.

“In 1978, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food supplied a surveyor for the topographic surveying of farm land for surface drainage. This program will continue this year. Another drainage contractor school will be held in Rainy River in April with four local farmers in attendance. Two representatives from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food will be in the area this spring verifying the condition of drains and ditches during the spring runoff.” You may remember I made mention of this.

“As you are aware, there are two acts, the Drainage Act and the Tile Drainage Act, under which farmers through their municipalities can seek financial and legal assistance and redress. These acts have been well tried and proven over many years. Two of the problems associated with them in the northwest are that they require the municipality to act on behalf of those farmers requesting assistance and, when part of a drainage basin is involved, all landowners who benefit from drainage improvement must contribute to the cost.

“An information meeting was held with all Rainy River municipal clerks to explain these acts and this, plus the growing awareness of the provisions of the acts by the farmers, is leading to greatly increased use of these provisions by your constituents.

“The study on drainage in the Rainy River farming area, commissioned by the local community employment strategy group and partly funded by my ministry, is expected by June. We are looking forward to using its results, combined with Mr. John Kuntze’s work, the inputs of the local federation of agriculture and others, to formulate programs that will further assist the farmers to increase productivity through the improved drainage. We intend for future reference to combine the results of the Kuntze and the community employment strategy studies in the form of a consolidated report as soon as possible. To accomplish this, we will in all probability secure outside assistance in the form of a consultant hired for that purpose.”

That was the letter directed to the member for Rainy River on April 4. On May 24 of this year we sent a further letter in response to an earlier one received. It reads as follows:

“Thank you for your letter of April 19 which re-emphasizes your concern about agriculture clearing and drainage in the Rainy River district. As I pointed out in my letter of April 4, 1979, there have already been considerable benefits in the area. As a result of the work carried on by Mr. John Kuntze, many farmers and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food personnel in the area are now familiar with the drainage problems that have been identified. I have implemented projects to rectify some of these problems.

“The reference to an additional consultant is simply contracting with an expert on agricultural drainage to edit Kuntze’s work and present it in a form that could receive wider distribution. Therefore, this is not another study in the sense you may have suspected. In the case of work contracted to the University of Manitoba, this study investigates the engineering and economic aspects of agricultural land clearing and drainage in the Rainy River district and a final report is expected very shortly.

“Throughout the conduct of the study, there have been regular meetings with the consultant by the members of the study committee representing the local Federation of Agriculture and various concerned provincial and federal departments. The federation representatives worked with the consultant on virtually a daily basis as he evaluated the problems of the area.

“In short, all parties have been in continual contact over the past several months. I am confident the study will give the Federation of Agriculture and the farmers in the area generally an excellent basis upon which to plan for drainage and clearing in the area and to request further senior government assistance where applicable.

“Because the bulk of the cost in instituting agriculture drainage relates to on-farm ditches and tiling drainage, it is proper, I feel, for local farmers to take the initiative in proposing which major outlet drains identified in the study should be improved via senior government assistance. When the consultant’s report is received, the Ministry of Northern Affairs will undertake to ensure that a forum will be established that will enable the federation and the local farmers to make decisions on the drainage improvement to be undertaken.” And that is the co-ordinating role, to which the member referred, that we are doing.

“If the local decision is to proceed with drainage works, existing government assistance programs would be available where applicable. If there are special circumstances for which existing projects are either insufficient or not applicable, the Ministry of Northern Affairs is prepared to consider special assistance, depending on the nature and the merits of the request. I am confident that this study will be a good first step in ensuring that the Rainy River district will be able to develop to its full agricultural potential.”

[12:45]

Those two letters certainly spell out in a very clear way the interests and the concerns and the desires we have in this ministry to get on with that particular project, considering the tremendous costs. Of course, we are very cognizant of the benefits that would accrue. There’s no question about that, but I think we have the issue in hand. We are playing that co-ordinating role to which the honourable member referred, and as we go down the road, I think with his co-operation and the understanding for which he’s noted we will succeed and we will obtain certain successes.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister would respond to my question about DREE. Are you planning in your submission to the federal government or has anything been made available to the Minister of Agriculture and Food or the Minister of Natural Resources or through the Treasurer, to put in a sum of money for this program in the Rainy River district? That’s something that could be funded under DREE. Has that step been taken?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As the honourable member is aware, we had prior to May 22 a $17 million northern Ontario package we were negotiating with the DREE people, which included, if I recall correctly, $5 million or $6 million for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I am not aware of how their figure was arrived at, or whether it was a specific program or dealt with needs in a very general way, but I do know there was reference to drainage in northern Ontario.

It’s not a large figure, I’ll agree. I think in the first run we wanted much more than that, but we were pared down, brought down to $17 million and then denied, which came as a bit of a setback to us. I think it’s fair to say we’ll be going back to the federal government with this proposal because this does replace ARDA in northern Ontario. We’ve got to have something in place for that program; which was well accepted, there’s no question about it. I will make a commitment to the honourable member to make sure if we’re successful in getting something in the nature of an Ontario DREE package -- there is consideration for the Rainy River area.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I appreciate what the minister has said. I take it therefore what we can do, as usual, is just wait until June until his study is completed to see where we’re going to go with it. It seems to me with money being as tight as it is the DREE program should be looked at. Hopefully, as the minister might say, with a new ball game now more will be made available, but we have been waiting for over three years. I hope we’ll get to the end of studying the problem and get on with it, because we all know what the problems are. What we’re looking for are solutions. Actually we know the solutions; it’s a matter of how we go about funding them.

Mr. Germa: I’d like to take advantage of this opportunity to speak to the Minister of Northern Affairs concerning the phenomenon he’s familiar with in northern Ontario, which is one industry towns which go through these boom and bust cycles. That has been detrimental in the past to every community in northern Ontario, be it an economy based on lumber, mining or whatever. It’s a one industry, one-horse town and the life and blood of that community is dependent on the one industry. Very often you have an imbalance where one community will be rising very rapidly and the other community is going down just as rapidly. There is no way to inter-relate these two actions so they could be of mutual benefit to both the communities and stimulate the one on the down trend and assist the one in the boom situation. We have that extreme contrast right now in the two cities of Sudbury and Elliot Lake. You have on the one hand Elliot Lake which is in a horrible expansion period. All the attendant difficulties attached to too rapid expansion are evident in Elliot Lake. There’s lack of accommodation, lack of services; prices are high. There is no accommodation for the number of workers necessary in Elliot Lake today. At the same time, barely 100 miles away, the city of Sudbury is in a severe decline with its mining industry. Both of these communities have mining industries. Elliot Lake happens to be uranium; Sudbury is nickel, copper and some other elements. The demand for uranium is high and we consequently have that predicament. Sudbury, of course, is on the other end of the scale. It’s like a teeter-totter; one is up and one is down.

Sudbury at the present time, has a vacancy rate in housing running in excess of 13 per cent. Housing values are down by 20 to 25 per cent. The exact opposite is evident in Elliot Lake. If we could connect those two communities with a transportation system we could take advantage of the unused facilities in the city of Sudbury to augment the lack of facilities in the community of Elliot Lake.

I know that the city of Sudbury has presented a brief to the government of Ontario pointing out the problems that Sudbury faces and also those faced by Elliot Lake. The council of Elliot Lake is in agreement with the city of Sudbury that they could work together, to be of mutual benefit if they could get together on a high-speed commuter system to move workers back and forth. People could take advantage of Sudbury’s already existing unused services -- housing, governmental, et cetera -- by living in the city of Sudbury and commuting to Elliot Lake.

I have some friends who are presently doing that; construction people whom I know personally have put together a package using a 42 passenger bus. So 42 of those construction men, including electricians, carpenters, plumbers and fitters, leave the new Sudbury shopping centre at six o’clock in the morning to travel to Elliot Lake. It’s a non-stop bus exclusive to their use.

It is costing them quite a bit of money, of course, approximately $10 per day, to commute to Elliot Lake but it gets them there within two hours -- which might seem a long time in southern Ontario where people just can’t tolerate more than a 15-minute delay, but these guys have been doing it for six or eight months on a daily basis. They leave Sudbury at six in the morning and they are back in Sudbury by 6:30 to 6:45 in the evening, having done their eight hours work. They are living in the city; they are residents of Sudbury. The cost is what I am talking about.

I know we have various subsidized transportation systems in the southern part of the province. We have GO Transit, for instance, which is subsidized to the tune of 50 per cent to move people from 60 miles to 70 miles outside of the city of Toronto into the community, back and forth; and we think nothing of that. But to ask the government of Ontario to implement a similar system in the northern part of the province is just unheard of. We don’t have the political clout. There are only so many seats up north and we can’t clout the government hard enough to force that sort of activity. Yet, not only do we have the need and the precedent of subsidy, we also have the vehicle.

We have the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission which is an experienced transportation entity, familiar with buses. They have the equipment, so why can’t the government of Ontario put in such a system which would alleviate a lot of problems? It would alleviate the high cost for those people who are commuting now because there is just no construction work in the city of Sudbury other than the gift the government gave us on the new provincial building. That’s going ahead, sure. That’s supplying jobs for a couple of hundred; but we have a large construction force in Sudbury and that construction force is needed in Elliot Lake. Yet there are not even bunkhouses available so they have to commute.

Why doesn’t the minister, in his role as co-ordinator of services in northern Ontario, take a look, respond to the brief of the city of Sudbury whereby they made certain recommendations, one of them being a transit service to be put together; and not by 42 individual construction workers. Sure they put that together for their own needs, but think how an experienced transportation company could put a service together and increase it. Maybe they could have six buses per day, taking not 42 construction workers but several hundred, maybe several thousand, from Sudbury to Elliot Lake on a daily basis.

Also recommended to alleviate the problem and to speed up the transportation corridor between Sudbury and Elliot Lake is the idea of upgrading the road allowance between Sudbury, Elliot Lake and all those towns in between and along the North Shore.

I know the minister has a program of four-laning highway 17 going west of Sudbury as far as Whitefish, but how quickly and how seriously is he looking at four-laning from Whitefish to the turnoff at highway 108 going to into Elliot Lake? Passing lanes have also served a good use in northern Ontario; because of the hills and the curves, the passing lane is very essential.

He could also relieve some of the congestion which is developing, because not only are these buses put together but there are van pools. There are several small vans running and there are a lot of people driving private cars at horrible expense. It costs as much as $7,000 a year to keep a car on the road. In one year that car will have travelled, just to take the man to his job, 50,000 miles a year. That is the kind of mileages the man is doing. You know yourself that any car that puts 50,000 highway miles on a year is pretty well shot at the end of the year. I know that from my commuting from Toronto to Sudbury. It is a minimum of $7,000 a year, and some of the people are forced to do that.

Here is a wonderful opportunity for the minister to earn his keep. It is only a small problem in the expansive problems of northern Ontario and I know it is very concentrated, but it would resolve an economic problem in the city of Sudbury and an accommodation problem in the city of Elliot Lake. It also would allow the construction and expansion to go forward at a more rapid rate because expansion is being curtailed due to lack of accommodation in the city of Elliot Lake.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Minister, can you make a brief reply?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to spend more time in replying to the member for Sudbury than the hour would allow and I would hold my reply until the next sitting of this committee. I understand that will be Monday afternoon.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Bernier, the committee of supply reported progress and asked for leave to sit again.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, could I request unanimous consent that we revert to introduction of bills? The Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) had indicated he would introduce a bill today. He has left me a copy of that bill and asked if I could introduce it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the House agree?

Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bernier, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Snow, moved first reading of Bill 99, An Act to amend the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have a short statement the minister left with me and I would like to read it into the record for the benefit of members. It reads as follows:

“Because of the importance of one of the amendments I propose to introduce later today to the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act -- ”

Mr. Nixon: We had that. It is a good statement though.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Fine, I will just table it.

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER AND RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Also, Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answer to question 180 standing on the Notice Paper; and the responses to petitions presented to the House, sessional papers 58 and 60.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.