The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

NEWSPAPER REPORTS

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of personal privilege relating to two Toronto newspaper articles which appeared last Friday and reported several Metro Toronto councillors had alleged I had misled the Legislature.

Mr. McClellan: They expressed their disgust.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I don’t mind being criticized, but when I am called a liar and accused of misleading members of the House, that’s a matter I simply can’t ignore.

In the Toronto Sun of May 25, members of the Metropolitan Toronto social services committee are reported as having accused me of misleading the Legislature on May 11 when I told the House that provincial officials met with Metro officials “‘for half an hour and showed them how to save $830,000 without cutting back services’.”

There was one error of fact in that, and that is the meeting lasted for two or two and a half hours, not for one-half hour, as was indicated at the time.

Mr. McClellan: How come you couldn’t remember that?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The committee chairman, Mr. Bruce Sinclair, is quoted as stating the meeting did not take place.

The Toronto Star, on the same date, reported Toronto Alderman June Rowlands said I had “‘deliberately and intentionally made totally false statements’” when I told the House that Metro could save $830,000 through administrative efficiencies.

I haven’t had a chance to speak to the committee chairman yet, but the report in the Toronto Sun was in error in that regard. First of all, that meeting did take place on Wednesday, April 25, from 10 a.m. until 12 or 12:30 p.m., as was reported by the social services commissioner to the Metropolitan social services and housing committee on May 2.

The chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, Paul Godfrey, and members of the social services committee met with me on Monday, April 23 to discuss these and other issues. On Wednesday, April 25, provincial and Metro officials held a subsequent meeting to discuss in detail provincial subsidies for administration of general welfare assistance.

It is my information from the minutes of the meeting that at that meeting the following potential savings were identified: First, $300,000 to Metro by converting to the provincial-municipal computer system. This saving was not taken into account by Metro in presenting its deficit.

Second, they could save $100,000 in the general welfare administration budget through the transfer of a surplus from homemakers’ and nurses’ services. Previously, Metro had estimated a deficit in that program.

Third, they could save $90,000 through integration of counselling programs to the normal general welfare assistance administration. Apparently Metro separates its counselling program to social assistance recipients from the normal general welfare assistance program. The suggested integration of services would save at least $90,000 in operating costs through the elimination of duplication in administration.

During the calendar year 1979 it is expected that the new computer system will result in $80,000 in staff savings. It is projected that $36,000 will be saved because at least two staff members will no longer be required for the cheque issuance control because of the change to the computer and $150,000 will be saved because Metro originally established administration costs of $259,000 for responding to changes in the unemployment insurance plan at the federal level. Subsequently, at a meeting I had with the members of the committee, we explained that it was probably too early to estimate the impact of those costs and, therefore, we would defer consideration of those until later in the year. An additional saving of $80,000 was identified in other areas.

I am pleased about the consultative process we have had at the provincial level and with the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, from which we both benefit. I want to assure the House that these discussions will be continuing to determine the budget base and any issues on the provincial ceiling for administration costs. The province is prepared to meet Metro officials as these issues arise.

As I attempted to make clear both on May 11 and again on May 24 when the matter arose in the House, my comments were not intended to be critical of the administrative competence of the Metro administration. I suggest there is a difference, though, between reviewing administration and looking for administrative efficiencies and suggesting lack of competence.

There may be a legitimate difference of opinion between us as to which measures can be described as administrative efficiencies and there may be some differences of interpretation still outstanding at the staff levels. However, I shall be responding to Metro very shortly in an effort to straighten out any such misunderstandings and to ensure the resumption and the continuation of the co-operative spirit that has marked our relationship in the past.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of privilege, without wanting to get into the charges and counter-charges between the newspapers and Metro officials, I think the point of confusion is that the minister said on Friday, May 11 that Metro social services by efficient administration could make reasonable administrative decisions which would save $830,000. We are still confused as to where this figure of $830,000 comes from.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think that the honourable member just heard a rather lengthy list. If there are any figures that are omitted from that, I’d be glad to provide them to him.

Mr. McClellan: They don’t add up to $830,000.

NEWSPAPER REPORT

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct an impression that might have been left by the Globe and Mail last Saturday, May 28.

Mr. M. Davidson: Do you feel you are under attack?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It reads: “Mr. Grossman would not name any of the Liberals he says supported the program in private talks with him. But he said James Breithaupt of Kitchener and James Bradley of St. Catharines should be uncomfortable with their leader’s position.”

I would point out that I did mention those two members, saying they ought to be uncomfortable with their position because of multinationals existing in their ridings, and most successfully. I would not want the impression to go that I was suggesting that either of those members had in fact written me privately or quietly or spoken with me in private talks supporting a particular program. It would be inaccurate to say that. In fact, I indicated at that time that those two members specifically had not written me privately asking for specific support.

Mr. Breithaupt: I appreciate the correction which the minister has made to the record.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TOURISM

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wish today happily to offer a good word to the fourth estate at a time when the media generally are being raked over the coals by some people for their coverage of that recent notable national event.

Mr. Ruston: Your candidate in that area.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let’s not do it today.

I wish to acknowledge that my ministry has been treated royally by media support, province-wide, for our major tourism promotion program, “We Treat You Royally.”

Members are, of course, aware that we have been moving forward on several fronts to stimulate Ontario’s tourism industry, beginning with our announcement in the budget speech that there would be a sales tax break on certain equipment purchases by restaurants and tourism operators. At the same time, we extended the sales tax exemption on tourist accommodation until 1981. In addition, we have co-operated with the Ministry of Revenue in publishing a new brochure which explains how visitors can apply for rebates on provincial retail sales tax paid for goods purchased here during their visit. This brochure has been widely distributed and is creating a very favourable impression of this province as a good host.

Recently, of course, we reported to this House on our plans for new tourist information centres for both seasonal and year-round operations.

Most important, however, is the way we treat our tourists. We launched a one-on-one welcoming program last year to make all of us more aware of how important tourism is to the province. The message of that program was, and is, simple. We asked everyone, especially those who come in contact with the touring public, to treat visitors royally.

The success of the first 12 months of the program has been very encouraging. One in four residents of Ontario recognized our slogan after only six weeks and 75 per cent understood why it was important. More than 5,000 companies, retail and service industries, participated in the campaign using our merchandising material. In all, we distributed 2.6 million pieces of merchandising material throughout the province.

To a large extent, the success of “We Treat You Royally” was made possible through the excellent support of the media -- newspapers and magazines, radio and television. They helped convey our message with conviction and enthusiasm and I thank them for it.

Today we are officially launching year two of the “We Treat You Royally” program. We have expanded the program this year. There are currency exchange facilities at all major border crossings and we have included new and more relevant types of merchandising materials, such as the currency exchange wheel, to let all tourists know what exchange rate to expect and, as I mentioned, a brochure to let visitors from outside Ontario know that they can get a sales tax rebate on certain goods.

One of the most important aspects of “We Treat You Royally” is the new training program which is designed to encourage people in the hospitality industry to treat visitors royally. Our target is to graduate at least 25,000 trainees over the next 12 months. Of this number, 11,500 will be instructed by specially trained personnel from my ministry; the remainder by the private sector. I am meeting with the media at Ontario Place later today to provide more program details, distribute our new material and ask for their renewed support.

On Wednesday of this week, there will be a “We Treat You Royally” festival at noontime in Nathan Phillips Square here in Toronto. In other areas of the province, promotions to introduce year two are already taking place with many more events planned for the summer and fall.

There’s no question the program has been accepted and there’s no question it is important. Over $5 billion is generated annually from tourism in this province. Tourism employs 12.5 per cent of the Ontario work force. It is Ontario’s second largest export industry.

Mr. Speaker, “We Treat You Royally” has had a great season in its first 12 months and, with everyone helping, we can make the next 12 months even better than before by letting each visitor know that in Ontario we do, in fact, treat you royally.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon at the appropriate time I will be tabling a copy of a letter from the chairman of Ontario Hydro to the chairman of the select committee on Ontario hydro affairs concerning reports prepared by Ontario Hydro on an incident at the Bruce A nuclear generating station on April 28, when two hydro employees received radiation exposures beyond permitted levels. Attached to the letter are copies of the reports.

I believe that this letter will clarify any questions which the honourable members may have concerning the article in the Toronto Star of last Saturday, May 26, and the suggestion that Ontario Hydro did not live up to a commitment it had made to release the report immediately on its completion.

ELEVATION OF ARCHBISHOP CARTER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday morning last Pope John Paul II announced from the Vatican the elevation of the Most Reverend Gerald Emmett Carter, Archbishop of Toronto, to the sacred College of Cardinals. As this is the first time that this Legislature has met since then, it becomes the first opportunity that we have had to extend our warm greetings and sincere congratulations to the cardinal-elect from Toronto.

[2:15]

Since coming to Toronto as archbishop last June, His Eminence has done much to foster the cause of ecumenism and greater understanding among people of all faiths and religious beliefs. His leadership capabilities, his zeal, his sensitivity and his piety combine to make him one of the most outstanding church leaders of these times. Cardinal-elect Carter has already made numerous significant contributions to his own church and to mankind.

As we all know, he is an eminent Latin scholar. Almost from the time of his ordination to the priesthood more than 40 years ago, he has been known internationally for the leading role he played in the translation of Latin texts, following the decisions that emanated from Vatican II.

The new prince of the Roman Catholic church hails from a very distinguished Montreal family which gave four of its children to their church. One brother is the Most Reverend Alexander Carter, Bishop of Sault Ste. Marie, while his two sisters are prominent members of religious orders. In 1977, the new Cardinal-Archbishop of Toronto was singularly honoured by his peers in the world hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church when he was elected to the 12-man council synod of bishops.

Mr. Speaker, I know I am speaking for you and each and every member of this Legislative Assembly when I express our profound joy and gladness with this Vatican announcement. As His Eminence the cardinal prepares to leave for Rome next month to receive his cardinal’s red hat, he takes with him the prayers and the best wishes of all the people of Ontario.

May God in his wisdom guide and direct him and may his reign as Toronto’s and Ontario’s cardinal be fruitful and lengthy.

Mr. S. Smith: I wish briefly to associate ourselves with the excellent comments made by the minister concerning the elevation of His Eminence to the position of cardinal. As outlined, the newly-elected cardinal has an excellent record of service to the church, to the community, to the country and to mankind generally. We hope and pray, and we know, that this record of service will be that much more enhanced in his new position. We certainly wish him only the best.

Mr. Cassidy: On behalf of my party, I want to share in the profound joy which I know that Catholics across Metropolitan Toronto and across Canada have felt in the elevation of Archbishop Carter to be a cardinal. Clearly he will speak with distinction and courage on behalf of Catholics from across this province and this country in the synod in Rome. We too would like to associate ourselves with the comments of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in welcoming this elevation of an archbishop of the church from Toronto.

ELLIOT LAKE URANIUM MINES

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Later today I will table the final report entitled, The Expansion of the Uranium Mines in the Elliot Lake Area, which I have just recently received from the Environmental Assessment Board.

This comprehensive report, which indeed it is, concerning environmental factors related to the expansion of the Elliot Lake mines is a summary of the public hearings held by the Environmental Assessment Board between November 1977 and March 1979. The board has had a total of 74 sittings and received submissions from 95 witnesses whose testimony, supported by 450 exhibits, is contained in more than 11,000 pages of transcripts.

I received the report on Thursday. Obviously, I have not had the time personally to read it, but I wished to table it at the first possible opportunity.

The Environmental Assessment Board chairman advises me that the main thrust of the report is its conclusion that the expansion and operation of the mines can be carried out in an environmentally acceptable manner during the short term, that is, during the next 30 to 40 years in which the mines are expected to operate. The board states that technology exists to ensure achievement of the environmental objectives.

The report contains several recommendations concerning the long term, the period after mining has slowed down or terminated. These are aimed at developing a strategy for attracting and developing new industry in order to avoid a one-industry Elliot Lake becoming a deserted ghost town. The board directs its recommendations in these areas to the companies and to the private sector, as well as to the appropriate Ontario ministries and federal agencies.

I intend to review thoroughly all the findings and recommendations of the board with my colleagues and with qualified staff to determine an effective strategy and plan for implementation. I will announce our response to this report at that time.

In conclusion, I wish to thank the members and the staff of the Environmental Assessment Board for the effective conduct of the public hearing and for the reports. I also wish to commend the three mining companies, the United Steelworkers of America, the town of Elliot Lake and the members of the Serpent River Indian band for their responsible and professional participation in these hearings. I would also like to thank the staffs of the Ministries of Housing, Labour, Natural Resources and Community and Social Services, who joined my ministry’s representatives at these hearings.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Energy, arising from his previous answers on the matter of the Babcock and Wilcox (Canada) Limited boilers supplied to Ontario Hydro.

On Friday last the minister referred to the fact that competitive tenders were called for the Pickering A boilers in 1965 and for the Bruce A boilers in 1970, but that they were not called in 1973 and 1974 for the Pickering B boilers allegedly because “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.”

Will the minister explain how it is that other companies that were available in 1965 and 1970 were no longer available, in the government’s view, in 1973 and 1974 -- which suppliers so disappeared from the scene that they were unable to tender competitively in 1973 and 1974? Is the minister not aware that between 1970 and 1974, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited was also contracting out for boilers and found a number of companies willing to tender?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the member a detailed answer on that. I assume there were perhaps technical considerations, if I can put it that way, but I will inquire from Hydro and try to have the answer for him very shortly.

Mr. S. Smith: Does the minister not realize that he has supposedly answered to this House on the subject of the tenders and the failure to call for tenders, and presented information that he apparently was ready to accept, that there were no other companies ready to bid, and yet the evidence would seem otherwise?

May I ask him, while he thinks that over, is he still unaware that Babcock and Wilcox did not win AECL’s last contract, for the Korean reactor, partly because of AECL’s concern that the Babcock design would produce the very tube crimping that did occur with the heat treatment?

Did people within Hydro tell the minister that the Darlington station contract bad been awarded to Babcock and Wilcox despite the fact that Hydro was warned that that design would lead to these very problems?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am not aware that Hydro was informed as the Leader of the Opposition says. But I will inquire into that too. I would add that I think the Leader of the Opposition is aware that work has not yet started on the Darlington boilers as a result of the checks that were made in December, when Hydro asked Babcock and Wilcox to cease work on their current production until they got to the cause of the problem.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: In the case of the previous contracts or of the Darlington contract, given that there is no performance bond, can the minister say that there is any guarantee at all from Babcock and Wilcox that these very complex and sophisticated boilers will work? Or are they simply taken on the basis that all of the risk rests with Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Auld: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that the contracts called for the delivery of the boilers to meet specifications, which included operating specifications.

Mr. S. Smith: Can the minister confirm or deny that Hydro has decided that one reason it might not go after Babcock and Wilcox for the entire sum of money that would otherwise be due to Hydro because of a manufacturing defect is the fear of putting Babcock and Wilcox out of business?

If that is true, does he stand behind that decision or will he see to it that Hydro goes after Babcock and Wilcox and, if need be, let the American company bail them out?

Hon. Mr. Auld: The only information I have is that Hydro has indicated it proposes to require Babcock and Wilcox to carry out the specifications in the contract. I can’t confirm or deny whether or not it will turn out that way eventually because, as I said before, it may wind up --

Mr. Mancini: Who’s in charge over there?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not you.

Mr. J. Reed: You are certainly not.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- in the courts, although I would hope that would not be the case because of the long delays that would probably ensue.

Mr. S. Smith: Then deny what I said.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since there was a four-year lapse between the granting of the contract to Babcock and Wilcox in 1973-74 and the actual manufacture of the boilers in 1978, all of which raises rather curious questions as to why there was nobody else in the field when they had four years to tool up, can the minister tell us what is the delivery date for the boilers that had been ordered for Darlington? Is it four years ahead so that there might have been an opportunity for tendering?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’m afraid I can’t give that detail either. I do know that Babcock and Wilcox had orders at one time from both Ontario Hydro and AECL, but I don’t know in what order deliveries were scheduled.

Mr. J. Reed: Who is in charge over there?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I do know the work has not started on the Darlington boilers as yet. I also understand there is a long time -- and I’m sure the chairman of the select committee would be aware of this -- between the time a design requirement is produced by Hydro, the specifications put together by the contractor and perhaps Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, work started and then completed.

I don’t know whether the normal course of events is a four-year time period between ordering and delivery. I really don’t.

PCBS IN MILK

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health concerning the matter of PCBs in mothers’ milk.

The minister started a program about a year and a half ago to have mothers’ milk tested because of the dangers of excessive amounts of PCBs in breast milk. I’ve been asked by one of my constituents what the present situation is, especially in view of the information letter from the health protection branch federally, advising women in the Great Lakes basin, which is most of the people resident in Ontario, to seek their doctors’ advice before breast feeding because of the danger of PCBs.

I would ask the minister, therefore, could he give us the results of the study which he has had going for about a year and a half, tell us the testing techniques he has had what the results have been particularly, and what allowable levels he would consider are to be accepted?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, obviously I don’t have that information with me today, but I’ll be glad to take the question as notice and answer it as soon as possible.

Mr. S. Smith: Would the minister be kind enough to check with Dr. Harding of the Ministry of Labour, where currently these results are tested for and confirm what Dr. Harding said to one of my assistants, namely, “There’s really no point to doing any of this testing; it’s just a program to appease people”?

Is the minister also able to check on the information that these PCBs are more prevalent toward the end of a feeding than toward the beginning, and would he check to see whether the samples that have been tested are relevant from that point of view? Could he present a full report, including what the allowable levels are, and explain why Dr. Harding seems to believe the whole program is just something to appease people and something of no value at $100 a test?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member will recall, I’m sure, that when the matter first arose, it was one that evoked a great deal of concern. In order to try to get a firm fix on the nature of the problem and what could be done, if anything, about it, we initiated the testing.

As I said, I obviously don’t have those figures with me but I will take the question as notice and report back with all the information currently available.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary, the member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Am I correct in assuming the Ministry of Health pays for these tests; and if so, what has the cost been to date?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’ll include that information, Mr. Speaker.

FOOD PROCESSING

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism concerning the problems of Ontario’s food processing and canning industry. In view of the fact imports account for 89 per cent of Canada’s sales of canned peaches, 83 per cent of our sales of canned mushrooms and 42 per cent of the sales in Canada of canned tomatoes, could the minister say when the Ontario government will announce plans to ensure our needs for these products are being met from Canadian sources? Why did the government wait until this February to establish a task force on the food processing industry?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Obviously, any further action we take will await the excellent work of that food processing consultative committee.

I might add, all the groups are working very hard together, including representatives of all sectors of the industry. They recently reported excellent progress to me.

I would hope before this House reconvenes in the fall, we would have something substantive to report as a result of those reports.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Given the fact we have been losing about a cannery a year for the last 15 years; and given the fact the imports of processed fruit and vegetables have gone up by 40 per cent in the last two years; and given the fact we are losing an estimated 6,600 jobs because of imports of processed fruits and vegetables that we can make for ourselves, when does the government intend to get serious about actually ensuring we process and make for ourselves the processed fruits and vegetables which we can grow in this climate?

Mr. Ruston: The minister should call his kissing cousins in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s the former government’s fault. I can only respond by indicating once again that we have only had two consultative task forces. The first one was on electronics, which the member’s party has also discussed in the House. The second is on food processing. They are hard at work now.

I’d like to add one other thing: We are not trying to push the decisions or recommendations of that committee in one direction or the other. Our ministry and three or four others are working very closely in an advisory and secretarial fashion with that committee so they may make some comments to us and some suggestions to us from various standpoints -- labour, the processors, and the agricultural components -- and so they may develop some of these solutions for us. I don’t deny the problems and, obviously, that’s the reason this government has reacted by starting a task force.

Mr. Swart: By way of supplementary to the minister: May I ask him if he realizes the first essential for fruit farmers to plant a variety of fruit, particularly peaches and pears appropriate for canning, is a guaranteed future market at a price to make the production viable? Can I ask him whether he has discussed the farm income stabilization program with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) and recommended to him it be expanded to include fruit that can be grown in this province, and to give a guaranteed farm income price for that?

Will he give some assurance now that steps will be taken to guarantee the continuing canning capacity which exists in Niagara?

Mr. Bradley: Get out the bankroll.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer to the second question, which is the only true supplementary, is, of course, that is exactly what we’re trying to do -- to ensure the future of the food processing industry in this province. That’s exactly what we’re about.

The answer to the first part of that question is that my colleague and I have discussed these and related matters on several occasions.

Mr. Bradley: Get out your bag of money.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If there are any government statements to be made in that regard, they will emanate from my colleague.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the canned fruit and vegetable industry is 65 per cent foreign-controlled, did the minister or his ministry instruct the task force to look into this problem? And will he make a commitment to us here and now that any input to the Foreign Investment Review Agency that has to do with any kind of takeover or increased concentration of foreign ownership in the canned fruit and vegetable industry will not be recommended by his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I indicated earlier, I can’t give specifics about our recommendations to FIRA, but I do want to make clear that with this particular industry we are most concerned that decision-making with regard to food processing and ownership, where possible, remain in this country. Obviously that is essential to protect that sector of our economy.

Mr. Warner: But you won’t do anything.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can assure the House directly that both the Minister of Agriculture and Food and myself --

Mr. Bradley: He’s busy building national unity.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- will have careful and complete discussions on any future FIRA applications in order to do what we can to ensure: (a) a food-processing industry in this province --

Mr. Laughren: Then stop representing them here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- (b) that decision-making remain here; and (c) that, where possible, ownership remain here as well.

SOLAR ENERGY

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Energy. In view of the increasing uncertainties about the supply of oil, is the minister aware of a study which has just been released by the federal Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources which shows that a serious commitment to solar energy here in this province could create 1,700 jobs in Ontario by the year 1985 and more than 14,000 jobs in Ontario by the year 1990? What plans does the Ministry of Energy have to revise its priorities in the light of those findings?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t seen the report in question but I will be delighted to look at it.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s coming to the minister now.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I do know from discussions I have had with people in the solar energy field that at the moment there are two main approaches which show economic promise in terms of payback.

Mr. Peterson: It shouldn’t be necessary to look at the report to have a policy.

Hon. Mr. Auld: One is domestic hot water heating and the other is heating swimming pools.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Given the problems that exist with oil and with nuclear power, and given that Ontario intends to commit at least $20 billion to electrical power over the course of the next decade, can the minister say why the government should not now undertake a major program of investment both in conservation and in renewable forms of energy, such as solar power, so that this can be a major source of jobs and of energy in the province over the next 20 years?

Mr. S. Smith: Remember that? We’ve been saying that for three years.

Hon. Mr. Auld: We have indicated that our plan and our target in renewable energy is to achieve a reduction of two per cent in our current energy needs, from other sources. I am told by experts in the field that is not a small target.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, is the minister not aware that In the United States alone, to say nothing of Japan and western Europe, and in solar energy alone, let alone all the other renewables, $650 million will be spent this year, and that is considered inadequate by most people who understand that industry in the United States? How does the minister compare that with Ontario Hydro’s plans to spend about $2 million, grand total, on all forms of renewable energy and conservation programs, when on a per capita basis we should be spending at least 100 times that?

Hon. Mr. Auld: As I think I indicated not too long ago, we have entered into an agreement with the government of Canada for, I think, $58 million over the next five years to provide the kind of incentives which --

Mr. S. Smith: Their money.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it’s not. It’s taxpayers’ money.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think it’s a substantial amount of money.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Ontario taxpayers. Never forget them.

Mr. Conway: That’s not what Allan Lawrence said.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s not what Larry Grossman said.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The program we have undertaken with the government of Canada, I think, is a good one. I also want to repeat what I said before: We are monitoring what research is being done by a great many jurisdictions as well as our own and it seems to me to be a waste of money to be duplicating what somebody else is doing.

Mr. Cassidy: Is it not the ease that the government’s priorities as far as energy is concerned are reflected in the fact that this coming year it will spend about $2 billion in investment for Hydro, but only about $10 million out of our current estimates both for renewable energy and for conservation? Are those not now the government’s priorities, and why will not the government now undertake a comprehensive series of policies to make new subdivisions suitable for solar energy to encourage the solar industry and to provide loans and grants for solar installations?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Once again, very briefly, it seems to me that Ontario Hydro’s primary task is to ensure an adequate supply of electricity which is a form of energy which everybody accepts. We know how it works and we can supply it and, in fact, we can supply it in a nuclear fashion with our own resources and not be in the hands of offshore suppliers and having a drain on Canadian dollars.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, on May 1 and May 25 I was asked by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) about the status of a review by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Babcock and Wilcox in connection with damaged boilers for Pickering B.

On April 25, 1979, the president of the Atomic Energy Control Board, Mr. John Jennekens, advised the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs that as a result of checks that had been made by Ontario Hydro quality assurance personnel, a review involving Ontario Hydro, its supplier, Babcock and Wilcox, and also its nuclear consultant, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, was under way. Mr. Jennekens went on to advise the select committee that the study had been initiated several weeks previously. Members of my staff have been in touch with Mr. Jennekens and he provided us with the following information:

1. Ontario Hydro has kept the control board advised of the problems with the Pickering B boilers and there have been frequent staff level discussions of the problems and the possible courses of action.

2. Ontario Hydro informed the control b oard of its decision to have the boilers repaired and the control board agrees with this decision.

3. No decision has yet been made by Ontario Hydro on the precise repair procedure they would propose. When decisions are reached on the proposed repair procedures, the control board will consider them along with the staff of the Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations who, of course, are involved in inspection of boilers and pressure vessels. The control board is not preparing its own report into the situation. Mr. Jennekens was referring at the select committee to the review being conducted by Ontario Hydro along with Babcock and Wilcox and AECL.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is the minister satisfied that no such study has been undertaken by AECB, despite the testimony in front of the select committee which clearly indicated that a study was being undertaken? Why does he continue to try to give Hydro credit for somehow or other discovering the problem? Is he not aware that it was a complete fluke that the problem was discovered, that, in fact, Hydro was checking on some allegedly defective tubing which turned out not to be defective and, in that way, accidentally discovered that the Babcock and Wilcox heat treatment had produced the bends in the pipes?

Hon. Mr. Auld: To answer the last part of that question first, I understand that there was a new procedure which had been adopted which led Hydro to take the cover off unit number 33 and found what was going on inside.

However, in connection with the first part of the Leader of the Opposition’s supplementary, in quoting from the Hansard of April 25 of the select committee, that’s page HA-1200-2:

“Mr. Nixon: There’s just one matter of clarification that I’d like to put in my capacity as a member rather than as chairman. I asked you if there was a special review of the Babcock and Wilcox capability and you said not on account of the Three Mile Island. Is there a review on another account?

“Mr. Jennekens: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Nixon, there is as a result of the checks that have been made by Ontario Hydro quality assurance personnel. There is a review that is currently under way involving Ontario Hydro and its supplier and also its nuclear consultant. The results of that review we consider to be an essential piece of information to our further consideration of the licensing of the stations involved.” That clearly seems to me to indicate that it was not a review by the control board but the control board would see the results of that review when it was completed.

[2:45]

APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS: EMPLOYER-SPONSORED TRAINING

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on May 11, the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) and the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) posed questions regarding the province’s apprenticeship and employer-sponsored training programs. At that time, I indicated that I would provide the requested data and I am able to do so at this time.

Regarding formal apprenticeship training in Ontario, I am tabling a chart in which appendix A indicates the number of indentured apprentices in Ontario, under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen’s Qualification Act, by groups of trades during the past nine years. It should be noted that there has been a steady growth in the number of apprentices during this nine-year period from 18,146 from 1910-71 to 30,148 during 1978-79.

In answer to the question about the allocation of funds for employer-sponsored training during 1978-79, it must be emphasized that when the Ontario government developed the concept of employer-sponsored training, the federal government was supportive and offered to make available as much as $8 million of unallocated training funds under their Adult Occupational Training Act. This $8 million figure was not a provincial estimate of specific training needs but rather a federal earmarking of the maximum amount that could be made available during fiscal year 1978-79. It was understood that these earmarked funds would be assigned to only those pilot projects agreed upon by both federal and provincial officials.

To receive federal support, it was also understood that the projects would have to meet federal funding criteria under the terms of the federal Adult Occupational Training Act.

The emphasis during this developmental stage has been to explore various innovative and flexible ways of introducing additional industrial training in Ontario, primarily in the metal-cutting trades. During the last half of fiscal year 1978-79, approximately $1.5 million was spent by both governments on employer-sponsored training projects. The details of the provincial portion of $585,000 are tabled in appendix B of this document. The federal expenditure is estimated to be under $1 million. When it became apparent to the federal authorities that not all of the $8 million would be required, they released the unused portion for its original purpose of institutional skilled training under the Canada Manpower Training Program and of on-the-job industrial training under the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program.

The pilot stage of EST continues to generate considerable interest from the private sector. In a previous reply on March 29, 1979, I indicated that 24 community industrial training committees had been formed and that 750 persons were in training. Since that time, the number of CITCs has grown to 30 and the number of trainees to 936 and we now have proposals in process which will result in 1,500 people being in training in the metal-cutting trades by the end of June of this year. Other proposals are anticipated which will allow the employer-sponsored training program to branch out into other areas of need which will further add to the total in training.

A complete list of the community industrial training committees now in operation and the number of trainees associated with each is tabled in appendix C of this document.

I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable members will find this information useful.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order: In view of the length of that answer, would it not have been better as a statement?

Mr. Speaker: Had it been any longer, I was going to draw to the attention of the honourable minister that standing order 27(a) provides that wherever notice is taken of an oral question that requires a detailed answer it will be done by way of ministerial statement rather than taking up the time of question period. I timed it. It was just a little over two minutes and so under the circumstances we will allow it. I think in future, however, if a detailed answer is required, it should be done by way of ministerial statement.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the original question was why, after a promise by the minister’s predecessor in her portfolio that thousands of people would be involved and about $7 million or $8 million spent on this program, and with $8 million of federal money available, her ministry was able to gear itself up to take advantage of only $1 million of federal money and to make a $1.5 million total expenditure?

Surely her ministry knew of the shortage of apprentices and the problems. Surely her predecessor knew what he was talking about when he said that thousands of people would come in during that fiscal year. Why could the ministry not gear itself up to take advantage of the millions of dollars of federal funds that were there waiting for it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, there are two requirements that are necessary for any program; that is, they must meet two specific federal criteria. There were a number of programs proposed during the fall, but we did spend the period of time from midsummer to December exploring the possibilities in many areas, in many sectors and in many communities. It requires the involvement of community-oriented and community-based people to make this kind of program work effectively, and that was the initiative that was carried out during 1978.

As a result of that activity, there are now larger numbers of young people -- those who are coming directly out of school and those who wish to be retrained or upgraded -- who are moving into the employer-sponsored training program.

With the numbers of proposals available in the appendix list which I have tabled with you, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will see just how many communities have put forward excellent proposals and the fact that we shall be able to move forward rapidly from now on.

Mr. S. Smith: But you have wasted a year.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You have wasted a lifetime.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question: If one looks at the tables in the appendices, one discovers that there has been not quite a two per cent increase in active total apprentices in this year as opposed to last year. Does the ministry call it progress in advancing a workable apprenticeship program and an opportunity for young people in this province when the increase has been less than two per cent?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the apprenticeship program is one of the areas in which a great deal of basic activity must be begun. The Industrial Training Council, under the recommendations of the Hushion report, has made certain recommendations, which came to me last week, in terms of modifying certain areas of the apprenticeship training program to make them more attractive to young people. That is one of our major activities for the very near future. Young people wishing to move into the apprenticeship program would like to have the opportunity to see that their apprenticeship program does not require a five- or six-year total commitment of their lives in order to reach journeyman status, because they believe it should not require that length of time. That is precisely the activity which I reported to this House we were exploring and have been exploring over the past several months.

CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Further to my question last week about the $33 million worth of child support payments in arrears in Ontario, I would like to ask the minister why he has only 20 parental support workers attached to the 53 provincial family courts in the province? Why would the minister maintain the PSW unit, a unit set up to identify and expedite support orders, when he does not staff that office properly?

Does the minister see any correlation between the fact that the nine courts with the highest defaulting rates are those that do not have parental support workers placed with them by his ministry? The nine are Waterloo, Rainy River, Bruce, York, Peel, Lambton, Huron, Hastings and Frontenac.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I could not hear the latter part of the honourable member’s question.

Mr. Blundy: I will be glad to repeat it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Without the details.

Mr. Blundy: All right. Does the minister not see some correlation between the fact that the nine courts with the highest default in payments do not have any parental support workers attached to them and that out of 53 courts only 20 have such workers?

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is my understanding that a more relevant factor in the rate of enforcement is to be seen in those areas where the family court has implemented a system of automatic enforcement, where on a regular basis the files are brought forward and if payments are missed the defaulting person is brought before the court to account.

I am not sure off hand whether the correlation the member has cited is as significant as the one that I have referred to. I will check with my staff to see if I can get more data on that.

Mr. Blundy: Would the minister describe what level of liaison his ministry has had with the Attorney General on this problem? It is my information that there has been virtually no effort by the Ministry of Community and Social Services to co-ordinate a more effective method of enforcing and collecting support payments.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I don’t know where the member gets his information. I can assure him there has been liaison both at the staff level and in conversations on the subject between myself and the Attorney General.

Mr. McClellan: Can I ask the minister whether it wouldn’t make more sense for the ministry simply to assume the responsibility for collecting support payments and ensuring whatever legal action is necessary if the payments aren’t made, rather than requiring family benefits mothers to do that and to penalize them financially if the spouse doesn’t make the support payments? Why doesn’t the ministry assume the responsibility for collecting and enforcing?

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is my opinion at this point that probably an even more effective way of doing that, if staff is available, is to have it done through the provincial court so there is, in fact, a record of whether the money has been paid on a monthly basis. If a payment is missed, then the court can automatically institute the procedure to require compliance with the order. I think that would be more efficient than requiring my ministry to become involved as a fourth party. It seems to me that administratively the automatic enforcement through the courts is the most efficient available.

TTC NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a point of personal privilege: I don’t often wish to correct what is reported in the press, but in that this matter is of some sensitivity, I thought I should. I really thought I would have had a question, but I know there are other urgent matters.

There is a story in the Sunday Sun, which paper isn’t often in error, which was repeated by the Toronto Star. It relates to the discussions going on between the TTC and the transit union. There was a letter from myself to Mr. Moynehan. I think the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) asked me about it some time ago.

The Sun story indicates that it is a secret letter. It’s so secret it has been posted in the press gallery. There is a quotation in the story: “I don’t like to intervene in the free collective bargaining process, but if the public of Toronto is inconvenienced I have no choice but to act.” That same quote is used in the Star story with some amplification, et cetera.

I word my letters as carefully as I do my answers in the Legislature.

Mr. McClellan: You mean the letter says nothing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Actually, it is a fairly brief letter. I just want to make it abundantly clear that there was no such statement contained in the letter. I did not suggest that if there was inconvenience I would have no choice but to act. I do refer to the fact that the government does believe in the collective bargaining process as it is at present in legislation. I am not sure where the quotation emanated from or the genesis for it, or the indication that the letter was theoretically secret. I don’t think it was marked “Personal and Confidential,” and this is no disrespect to Mr. Moynehan but I don’t think he expected that it was a secret or confidential letter either.

[3:00]

HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. What is the position of his ministry on an opted-out physician, without notification, charging above the Ontario Health Insurance Plan scale in a publicly funded hospital and subsequently taking the patient to small claims court to collect?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, that type of situation is clearly covered in the statement I made in March. I would expect that any such case the honourable member might have knowledge of he would relate to us or directly to the Ontario Medical Association, which has been successful in mediating similar misunderstandings.

Mr. Breaugh: I did that same routine on April 12 and have not heard any results from it. In this instance it has already been to the OMA, and they say there is nothing they can do. Does this then qualify his ministry’s agreement with the OMA, in the words used by today’s Star editorial, as a program that is more public relations than public service?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I may say that we have had very few indications of problems in recent weeks. I am not sure to whom the honourable member spoke on April 12, hut I will be glad to check into that.

Mr. Breaugh: To the minister -- in here.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I referred that to staff at the time, probably.

Mr. Breaugh: I made the fundamental mistake of asking the minister.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The fact of the matter is that the program seems to be working well.

Mr. Wildman: Except when you get involved.

Mr. Conway: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister indicate today, or take advantage of statements at an early opportunity to explain to members of this House, exactly how the mechanism referred to in his March statement has been proceeded with? Can he perhaps give us all a better understanding of the specifics of this mechanism, which is to alleviate the problems spoken of by the member for Oshawa?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the OMA and the Ontario Hospital Association have met several times since then to discuss the matter. To date, to my knowledge, they have not finalized those discussions. There is no formal mechanism as such developed as yet.

Mr. Breaugh: There isn’t an informal one either.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have been in regular contact with both. Any particular problems that have been drawn to our attention, to the best of my knowledge, have been resolved.

The member for Oshawa claims -- and I underline “claims” -- that there is a particular problem that has not been resolved. I will check into that and see whether that is the case and, if so, why.

CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney General and in essence is a companion piece to the questions addressed to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

In view of these child support orders in the family court, and the numbers with which his ministry deals, would the minister see fit to computerize these orders in the courts so that the social workers, the recipients and the courts themselves may be served by a support payment procedure that could be regularly updated and enforced?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any question but that there is a great deal of wisdom in the question put forward by the member for St. George, inasmuch as the automatic enforcement procedures we have applied have been quite successful. Whether a further or greater or more widespread application should be done by computer or otherwise, I am really not in a position to make that judgement.

There is no question but that we need to extend our automatic enforcement procedures, and I am hoping we will be obtaining additional funds for this purpose.

Mrs. Campbell: When the minister is looking at this matter, would he also set forth guidelines for the consistent recording of these orders so that there can be some control over the labelling of accounts as dormant? As the minister undoubtedly knows, at the present time this seems to be arrived at individually in each court by a bookkeeper in the court. Some judges, as the minister knows, have erased arrears when they became substantial.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will certainly look into the matter of guidelines. I’ve asked for an updating of the existing situation.

One of the problems is that a number of these orders are made ex parte in absentia so far as the spouse who is required to make such payments is concerned. Unfortunately, a large percentage of the total is represented by orders that are really in effect default orders right from the commencement, where the individual, often the husband, has not bothered to appear, the whereabouts is not known and the figure at the beginning is a rather arbitrary figure.

Mrs. Campbell: Is it a new procedure?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, this is particularly so in divorce matters. This is very common because a large percentage of the divorces that are granted in this province are undefended, as the member for St. George knows. This often applies to the orders that are made in these very large numbers of undefended divorces which are then filed in the family courts. I mention this only to indicate that in many of these cases there is a certain unreality right from the beginning. In any event, we are looking into the matter very carefully, and it may be that some better form of guidelines would be appropriate.

FRUIT LAND PRESERVATION

Ms. Swart: My question is of the Minister of Housing. Does he recall that his predecessor announced with great fanfare in February 1977 that his government was cutting back the urban development boundaries in Niagara to save, as he said, some 3,000 acres of fruitland?

Given that the developers in certain municipalities have appealed almost all of that reduction to the Ontario Municipal Board and asked to have it expanded to the original boundaries and that the hearings start one week from today, is he going to have legal counsel present at the OMB hearings to defend his position?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, we shall have legal counsel present at the OMB hearing a week from today. We shall make very clear in the opening statement exactly what we believe the OMB’s responsibility is under this particular hearing.

MILTON SCHOOL DELAY

Mr. J. Reed: My question is of the Minister of Education. Would the minister undertake to review a decision by her ministry to delay from 1980 to 1982 completion of a new school in the Timberlea subdivision area in the town of Milton? Upon completion of that review, would she give an indication to this House as to the time line when she could bring back a decision based on changes that have taken place over the last six months in terms of population expansion?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes.

CHEMICALS IN SCHOOL YARD

Mr. M. Davidson: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Given that soil testing in the playground area of Manchester School in Cambridge shows excessive levels of zinc, cadmium, copper, nickel and lead, can the minister explain why it is that the school board was not notified of the problem until some time last week, when the ministry was aware of the situation as far back as last October and apparently sat on it?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That is not so. We took a few tests last October. We wanted to take a good deal more tests and we’ve done that. That information is only recently available. I cannot accept what the member opposite has said.

As I understand the situation there, it was routine testing that found this, and we wanted to confirm all of that information. There is no doubt there are high tests there. But I would like to remind the member too that in 1977 or 1978 a control order was placed on that industry. We sure haven’t sat on it and done nothing.

Mr. M. Davidson: A supplementary: Given that the final report was brought down in March and that the official of the ministry in Cambridge is only aware of the lead level, which is 2,000 parts per million, and that one of the toxic metals is cadmium, which is far more dangerous, why is it that the ministry’s official in Cambridge does not know the levels of the other metals involved? When, in fact, is the minister going to table a report of these findings so that we may be aware of the exact levels found in the soil?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don’t think the member is asking that every routine test made by the Ministry of the Environment be tabled.

Mr. Martel: It was hardly routine.

Mr. M. Davidson: You’re right; I’m not.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We’re quite prepared to table any information the member wants at any time we have it; no problem there whatsoever.

Mr. McClellan: What is routine about this?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The hundreds of thousands of tests aren’t always going to be put on this table.

Mr. Makarchuk: Surely when you’re dealing with a schoolyard you might show a little more interest.

NORTHLANDER SERVICE

Mr. G. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Northern Affairs: Over the past two years the Ontario Northland Railway has made some six changes in its schedule on the stops between Barrie and Orillia, on both its north and south routes. I am given to understand that again the Northlander train will not be stopping at Barrie or Orillia on its north or south routes. Is there anything that can be done to convince these people that both those communities are necessary stops for the Ontario Northland Railway?

Mr. Bradley: The minister can’t blame the feds.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s the wrong government.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as you know, there was considerable pressure to move that stop up to Orillia some time ago. I believe I indicated to the honourable member that we would review the possibility of having that train stop at Barrie, and I am prepared to look at that matter again.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Are these cutbacks part of an attempt to get in line with federal policy so that VIA Rail can take over the passenger service of Ontario Northland?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No. We have not bad any serious discussions with VIA Rail.

Mr. Wildman: What do you mean by “serious”?

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing, if I can get his attention. Is the minister aware that the influx of people from all parts of Canada as a result of the industrial expansion in the Windsor area has placed an unusual stress on existing housing, making it more and more difficult for those on low and fixed incomes to find affordable housing? What plans does the minister have to alleviate the needs of the 696 senior citizens and families who now have applications in to Ontario Housing Corporation?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, first of all, not too many weeks ago, as the member will know, I met with the mayor of Windsor and also the general manager of the housing authority for that particular community. We reviewed some of the needs for public housing, both for families and for seniors. I am not prepared to accept that number as being the most accurate possible, because there are a number of applications which, when they are eventually processed to the final degree, will be found not to qualify under the criteria that at present exist in the Ministry of Housing and with the housing authority.

We have discussed with the mayor and his people other ways of putting housing units on the market. The Bridge Street program, with which we have concurred and which is under way -- and some of the units of which will go into the rent supplement program -- has been approved by the Ministry of Housing to try to take up some of the slack that exists in that particular community.

I am also waiting to hear back from the mayor as to other projects he would like to review with the Ministry of Housing as possibilities to come under rent review or under the sponsorship of a non-profit housing corporation.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: As some of the individuals now live in housing which is satisfactory to them but which is owned by private individuals, and cannot afford that housing, and, as a result, have applied for housing with the Windsor Housing Authority, why wouldn’t the minister consider a rent supplement to such individuals? Does the minister not consider it unfair to subsidize one and not another when their incomes are exactly the same?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If, by chance, the city of Windsor and its housing authority wish to recommend to the ministry that certain privately owned housing be looked at for rent supplement programs, we are prepared to do so; whether we use the in situ situation or not is something else.

The fact is that there are some projects in this province which the ministry has been asked to declare as rent supplement units and to allow the tenants at present there to go on to a rent supplement program. In the assessment of those tenants, their position and their rating have been found to be not as high as that of some waiting to get into those units. I think what we are really looking at. in fair and frank terms, is trying to do end runs on the system, and I don’t think it’s fair.

[3:15]

There are others who are not at present in adequate housing and who are looking for accommodation or their point system is substantially higher. As a result, if you allow this end run situation to take place, the first thing we will have is a great number of people, who I think and the system also says, are not as eligible for the rent supplement program but because of their presence in a certain unit they would qualify. I don’t think that’s the way the system should work.

Mr. Cassidy: You are strangling in red tape.

Mr. Cooke: Is the minister aware that in Windsor, there are 172 single people between the ages of 25 and 59 who have applied to get into Windsor housing but because of the Ontario Housing Corporation policy stating they will not house these types of people even though they are disabled, they cannot get housing in Windsor and other cities across this province? When is the minister going to change his policy so these types of people can live in decent housing instead of slums?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That situation doesn’t exist only in Windsor, obviously.

Mr. Cooke: That’s what I said.

Mr. Warner: It’s a provincial failure.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere should know about failures because he really typifies them in this particular House. There are people in the age group between 25 and 59, as the member said. We have fried, through the public purse with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the municipalities and the provincial government, to provide housing for the age groups we think are most in need. Number one is family accommodation and number two is senior citizens, who are 60 years of age and older. It has not been the policy, either federally, provincially or municipally to try to fill that void or the vacuum that exists for the ages between 25 and 59. Mr. Speaker, to be very honest with you, the system hasn’t got the capacity and it is not our intention at this time to change the policy.

RAPE CASE

Mr. Mackenzie: A question of the Attorney General: In view of the attempt to subvert justice in a particularly vicious rape trial scheduled for next month as evidenced by the explosives which killed two people in a van near the home of the victim and this morning’s dismantling of a powerful bomb which was near the home of another one of the victims in this particular rape case, would the Attorney General report to the House the steps he has taken to protect the witnesses, and will he move the date of the trial up, at the request of local authorities?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I certainly will attempt to assure the House proper steps are being taken to protect these witnesses. To publicly reveal the precise steps, of course, might defeat the effectiveness of the protection. Moving up the date of the trial is really a matter for judicial determination. I will discuss with the crown prosecutor the possibility of doing that, but the ultimate decision will lie with the court and the judge who is seized of the case.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the Attorney General report to the House on his ministry’s actions and instructions to police forces across Ontario to eliminate such sick actions and deal with those motorcycle gangs reputed to have connections with organized crime and the illicit drug traffic? Will he specifically report to the House as to whether or not the use of dynamite bombs as a means of intimidation, which has grown to almost epidemic proportions in the United States, has now moved over into Ontario as well?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will report back to the Legislature to the extent I can, Mr. Speaker. Generally in relation to this problem I just want to make it clear to the member, I share his concern.

QUALIFICATIONS OF DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

Mr. Ruston: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Has the Minister of Education any guidelines for the qualifications of a director of education? Can, in fact, someone be a director of education who only has correspondence courses?

Mr. Wildman: Are you looking for a job?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am aware there are some guidelines for the director of education. The individual must have been an experienced teacher with administrative experience as well. I am sure the other specific qualifications are outlined somewhere. I don’t know them at this present time but I shall be happy to investigate them.

I am aware there has been an applicant for the role of director of education who did indeed achieve some increased qualification through correspondence courses. Those are, in many instances, valid courses. I would have to examine the institution from which the qualification was granted in order to know whether one should look askance or sceptically at the qualifications so demonstrated by that individual. But there are many correspondence courses -- to wit the ministry’s correspondence program -- which serve many people in outlying areas extremely well, not only at the secondary school level but also at the post-secondary level.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, has the Premier, after his fleeting visit, left the chamber?

Mr. Speaker: It appears he has left.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister is no doubt aware that today Lisa Spencer resigned her position as an elementary school teacher with the Toronto board of education in order to avoid any possibility of a continuing conflict of interest for her spouse, Robert Spencer, a trustee with the Toronto board of education, under the present wording of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, would the minister consider seeking an amendment to that Municipal Conflict of Interest Act so that it has the effect of the criterion her predecessor always applied; that is if voting on a question does not put money directly in one’s pocket, he or she has no conflict? Alternatively, would she consider amending the act so there is not a conflict of interest if a spouse is part of a unit represented by a bargaining agent?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be delighted to discuss with my predecessor his interpretation of the conflict of interest portion. I am not sure the statement just made by the honourable member for Windsor-Sandwich was exactly that which I have heard from my predecessor. I shall be very pleased to speak to him about it.

PETITION

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 33(b) of the Legislative Assembly Act, we, the undersigned, petition that the 1977 annual report of Ontario Hydro be referred to the standing resources development committee for the purpose, without limiting the scope of the committee’s inquiry, of investigating and reporting as soon as possible on the matter of defective boilers supplied by Babcock and Wilcox Canada Limited to Ontario Hydro.

If the 1978 report is tabled today, the petition could, no doubt, be amended accordingly.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 100, An Act respecting Local Government in the District of Parry Sound.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this bill is essentially the same as Bill 205 which was introduced last December. The principal changes I can outline very briefly. The name “township of North Georgian Bay” has been changed to “Georgian Bay Archipelago township,” and the council will be headed by a reeve instead of a mayor. The first reeve will be elected by council from among the members of the council. In addition, the existing townships of --

Mr. Martel: It sounds like regional government to me.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- Humphrey and Foley will have portions of Conger township annexed to them.

Mr. Bradley: Regional government under another name.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Not really.

The bill also clearly defines the water boundaries in front of the town of Parry Sound. The start-up date for all these reorganizations is January 1, 1980, rather than December 1, 1979, to coincide with the normal municipal fiscal year. In addition, the province will not only pay the costs of the special elections in Kearney and the Georgian Bay Archipelago in 1979 but also the costs of the school board elections for those areas in 1980 since there would be no regular municipal elections at that time.

PUBLIC UTILITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 101, An Act to amend the Public Utilities Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This bill proposes four changes to the Public Utilities Act. The first will permit the resale of water with the permission of the municipality and thus enable commercial water haulers to resell water from a waterworks to persons whose water supply has been depleted.

The second will strengthen the wording of section 30 by providing that amounts payable for the supply of a public utility are a lien upon the lands, in the same manner and to the same extent as municipal taxes upon the lands.

The third will update the provisions for electing members of hydro-electric and public utilities commissions by making it clear that the provisions of the Municipal Elections Act, 1977 apply.

The fourth amendment will delete the existing provision which requires Ontario Hydro’s approval of the salaries paid to members of hydro-electric and public utilities commissions.

CHILDREN’S RIGHTS ACT

Mr. McClellan moved first reading of Bill 102, An Act to declare the Rights of Children in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to declare the rights of children in Ontario and to provide a means for enforcing those rights through the process of judicial declaration.

The bill sets out a series of 12 rights belonging to every child who is resident in this province, and states every parent and the government of Ontario has the duty to protect these rights.

In certain circumstances, an application can he made to a judge for a determination whether a duty to a child has been fulfilled, together with the nature of that duty.

The bill further provides guarantees for children in any proceedings concerning matters affecting the guardianship, custody or status of children.

I may add, Mr. Speaker, this represents a contribution from our caucus to the International Year of the Child.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would like to table the answer to question number 123, and the interim answer to question 181 appearing on the Notice Paper.

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:

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose last Friday in the examination of the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, the honourable member for Sudbury was bringing to the attention of the House the need to do something in northern Ontario with respect to those single-resource communities that encounter economic problems as they move down the economic life of that resource. He was referring specifically to the possible transportation problem or the transportation needs between the Sudbury basin and Elliot Lake.

If I might just take a moment, I’d like to recognize the very large group of Dryden students who are in the gallery today. It is an exceptionally large group. I think there are close to 60 or 75 students from Dryden here today.

[3:30]

Of course, they are assisted by the Young Voyageurs program and as well they contributed handsomely themselves. They have made use of that very efficient airline, Nordair, to come to Toronto and see firsthand their government at work. To them we extend a very warm welcome, and we hope their visit is both very lengthy and very pleasant.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to put into the record some proposals that came before us at that particular time. Honourable members will recall that the mayor of Kapuskasing, René Piché, through his action committee, made some overtures with regard to the improvement of air service through his area, that being from Kapuskasing to Elliot Lake and on to Toronto, with a Dash-7. In fact, officials of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission did a review of the possibilities and went so far as to even name it the Miner Liner, which, if it were implemented would move miners from Sudbury to Elliot Lake and return. The proposal did receive considerable initial response but was deemed impracticable under current circumstances. It was reviewed internally by my own ministry back in the spring of 1978, and the conclusions were the same.

I might say that at that point we had some discussions with the federal government on the possibility of leasing a Dash-7. We hope we can work out an arrangement. But our visit to Ottawa to meet with the now extinct Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Jack Horner -- the great member from Alberta; the fellow who can ride a horse -- was disastrous.

Mr. Bolan: Never mind whether he can ride a horse. Find out if he can fly an airplane or get one for the minister.

Mr. Wildman: What was Otto Lang’s position?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He wasn’t at the meeting. Bob Andras was there, along with Keith Penner; Ralph Stewart I believe was there, as was Maurice Foster. In fact, Maurice Foster was one of the prime movers, along with René Piché, of this idea. But we were shot down in flames with that idea, because it was obvious that the traffic was not there. We feel it would take about three years before the traffic volume would be sufficient to support such a service, at least based on the figures we had at that particular time.

I also want to mention that Mayor Gordon of Sudbury has prepared a brief entitled “Sudbury-Elliot Lake; Government Policies Required to rationalize Economic Development Patterns.” This brief calls for the provincial government to provide solutions to present transportation and communications deficiencies between the two urban centres. I believe that is what the member from Sudbury was alluding to.

The brief asks for very considerable outlays of government funds for items such as acceleration of the four-laning of highway 17 west, subsidizing of bus services for commuters between Sudbury and Elliot Lake, improved norOntair service between Elliot Lake and Sudbury, improved high-speed passenger rail service between Toronto, Sudbury, Elliot Lake and Sault Ste. Marie, high-quality communication links through data transmission lines, and provision of government services from Sudbury-based personnel and facilities for Elliot Lake during the rapid urban expansion of that particular community.

It would be premature for me, or even the government, to make any comment at this time on that brief. It is being reworked, I think, with the North Shore communities, because there was some reaction to its contents, of which I am sure the member for Algoma is more aware than I am. After the brief is reworked and is presented to us, we certainly will have a good, Close look at it.

I want to mention, for the benefit of the honourable members, some of the provincial assistance we have given the Sudbury basin during the recent crisis. Members will recall the announcement of the $10-million provincial building in Sudbury. Many of the members from the Sudbury basin were present when my colleague, the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson), did the official sod-turning a little less than a year ago. That building is wall advanced now and is the project providing a considerable amount of employment to the construction trades.

The Ministry of Northern Affairs gave a specific amount of funding for work to be carried out on the Nickeldale Dam by the Nickel District Conservation Authority. A number of road projects were also included for acceleration and improvement in that particular area, especially highways 17 and 108. Members all remember the very substantial financial assistance that MNA provided for the 2001 venture, a three-year, locally-initiated venture, whose thrust to pull the community around was the need for industrial development right there in the Sudbury basin. The amount of that assistance was about $600,000.

In addition, the ministry has contributed to the greening of Sudbury, which is a project to improve the greening in that particular area. Assistance about which I have spoken already was given to the Sudbury import substitution study and the agricultural revitalization study. Those are just a few of the items we’re assisting directly at a time of crisis and severe problems that municipality is having. Let’s hope they will be of only a short duration.

There is also, of course, the work we have been doing with DREE people in connection with the Walden industrial site. That is just a brief review of a number of the items we are doing in the Sudbury area that some of the members may have forgotten. It is quite substantial and I am sure the results will be very positive.

I would like to answer another question before I take my seat. The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) questioned the length of time it is taking to build the Bailey bridge for Crystal Falls. I am told that it is quite a distance for that bridge. It is something like 200 yards. The water is exceptionally fast and the bridge may require a centre structure as support. The approaches were gone at both ends. Completion is set for August but they are going to try to accelerate the date. These are some of the problems they are confronted with.

In the meantime, we will be working closely with the Minister of Natural Resources to provide a larger boat to transport the students back and forth. That is not in place yet but my staff told me as recently as an hour ago that discussions are well advanced.

Mr. Bolan: Seeing that the minister is in such a good mood today in discussing in the House the advances the ministry is making in transportation in the Sudbury-Elliot Lake area, perhaps we could also find out at this time just what the minister has to say about the cutbacks in bus transportation which were introduced by the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission last fall.

There were some cutbacks which were made, not in the lucrative runs like the one from Toronto to North Bay or from North Bay to Timmins, but rather in those areas which are not lucrative and where the service is definitely required. I am thinking particularly of the area from Timmins to Foleyet, which I believe was discontinued altogether, and some other routes from Timmins to Wawa which were very seriously cut back.

Would the minister first of all care to give us the reasoning for these cutbacks or discontinuances, and tell us whether or not this is the type of policy which the government will pursue in the future, and whether or not the policy of the government is to look at the bottom line of the bus operation and to keep on effecting cutbacks as long as the bottom line shows red until we see black?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, let me point out it is certainly not the government’s policy, or indeed the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission’s policy, to just cut back service for the sake of cutting back to show a profit. There’s a certain rationalization that has to occur. They are charged with the responsibility of running an operation within certain guidelines.

The member will recall the remarks the chairman made to the North Bay Chamber of Commerce. Management Board in its wisdom and the government in its wisdom have taken certain sections of the ONTC and split them up into commercial and non-commercial. In other words, there’s some we know should be subsidized and we fully accept that responsibility.

There are others that compete with the private sector and they should be carrying a fair share of that responsibility. In other words, how far do we subsidize those other facilities? I can assure the honourable member that it is not a policy of outright cutback and withdrawal of services, only a rationalization and improvement in some cases where the service is not used and maybe a further refinement of the amount of traffic is warranted.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, in relation to that, I would like to ask a supplementary on the bus service and make one comment in relation to the study my colleague from Sudbury discussed last Friday; that is, the comment that perhaps there might have been more consultation by the Sudbury council in preparation of its brief with Elliot Lake and with some of the North Shore communities that might have allayed some of the concerns expressed later on. Hopefully, if there is an improvement in transportation, and certainly bus service, between Sudbury and Elliot Lake that will also take into account the North Shore communities and the benefits that might accrue to them.

In relation to the question asked by the member for Nipissing regarding Ontario Northland cutbacks and the minister’s reply, I just want to point out that the minister had indicated to me previously, as had the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), that if there was to be a cutback in service in the Wawa area this would not occur without consultation, and secondly, it would take place in relation to other services, such as commercial services like Greyhound, in the area.

Yet when the cutback took place customers, small businessmen who used the Ontario Northland for freight between Timmins and Wawa, did not hear about it until the announcement was made in the press, including the owner of the local weekly in Wawa, who happened to use the service. He didn’t know about it until he got the news release from Ontario Northland. That hardly constitutes prior consultation.

When I approached the ministry and asked for clarification on this and why on earth this had happened, I was informed they felt they were having to compete with Greyhound on the route between Wawa and Sault Ste. Marie, along highway 17 and that people could use Greyhound. Apparently, Ontario Northland and the ministry were unaware at that point that Greyhound had just previously cut its service.

In order to spend a day in Sault Ste. Marie shopping or visiting friends or doing business there, if you want to go by bus and get there early in the morning you have to leave Wawa at 3 am. This is hardly an adequate service. It seems to me we need some kind of explanation as to why, first, there wasn’t prior consultation with the people involved and the people affected; and second, why is it Ontario Northland was so unaware of what Greyhound was doing?

[3:45]

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I’m sure the honourable member is aware that following his communications with me the chairman of the ONR did make a personal effort to go into those communities and to meet personally with those people and explain the actions of the ONR.

Mr. Wildman: That was after.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: To say the least, I think they were favourably accepted once he explained to them the reasons for it. They are reasonable people; they are businessmen themselves and the problem was resolved.

I’ll agree with the member there was a breakdown in communications and I hope that doesn’t happen again. I do feel strongly that when the service is being reduced or changed in any way those customers who are directly involved should be notified as early as possible. The staff have been aware of this shortcoming and they will attempt not to repeat it in the future,

Item 1 agreed to.

On item 2, analysis and planning:

Mr. Wildman: Again I’d like to go briefly to the role of the ministry. We were told in our analysis of the planning activity that the role is inter-ministerial -- participating in committees, proposals emanating from other ministries and so on. I’d like to know what involvement this ministry has had with the various studies on government changes, such as the bill introduced this afternoon by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) with regard to the Parry Sound area.

Mr. Bolan: That’s in northern Ontario too.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, I know it is; that’s why I mentioned it.

Mr. Bolan: But they don’t know it.

Mr. Wildman: I understand there are a large number of studies going on. One is in the Blind River area regarding possible municipal annexation of other areas around Blind River. There is one that deals with the Smooth Rock Falls area, around Strickland and Fauquier. There is one in the Kirkland Lake area; and of course, there is also one in the Sault Ste. Marie north area, in my own riding. What is this ministry’s role, if any, in these studies by the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs on changes in the municipal organization? Some of them include annexation of unorganized areas or smaller municipalities, or the establishment of new municipalities in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, we are very much involved in those studies. The staff teamwork is very evident. It shone through in the preparation of the Local Services Board Act. That was a typical example.

As the act was moving ahead the communication between the two ministries was, to say the least, excellent from the minister right down to all members of both ministries. We do have an involvement. We are able to provide the northern input which is so important in these studies. I think there are 12 or 15 studies, if memory serves me correctly, going on right across northern Ontario now. We are looking at various forms of annexations and new government structures and that type of thing. So we have a direct link and we are able to put that northern feeling into it. Some people down here think there will be massive amounts of growth in these areas, but that is not necessarily the case. The records show that over the last 10 or 15 years we haven’t had the kind of growth some people down here feared. It’s those kinds of things we’re able to express to the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

I’m personally confident, after discussions with the present minister, that he is very much aware of our feelings. The ministry is very cognizant of northern affairs and they’re relying on us for input, at least of the attitudes that we sense in northern Ontario. So we are there and we have the opportunity to provide input and to share with that ministry any proposals that come forward.

Mr. Wildman: All right, I’ll accept that. I just noticed this afternoon that when the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) made a statement with regard to Elliot Lake, he referred to the tabling of a report I had referred to earlier in these estimates, the Environment Assessment Board’s report. In that report it states there are going to be serious problems, in terms of services among other things, completely apart from the immediate environmental impact of the expansion. That is environmental in the normal sense of the word; in the wider sense there are going to be serious problems with services such as hospitals and many others, even such things as waste disposal.

In the statement made today by the minister, he thanked specifically a number of other ministries, the Ministry of Housing and so on, for co-operating with his ministry in appearing before the Environmental Assessment Board hearing, as well as a number of other agencies in the community, such as companies, unions and the town of Elliot Lake.

Was your ministry involved at all in the environmental assessment hearings in Elliot Lake; and is it going to be involved in the plans for the provision of services? I note what you have said about Atikokan in terms of communities that are experiencing a depression in theft economies and what your ministry has attempted to do. What about a community that is booming? There seems to be a problem here, in that as long as things are booming I detect a feeling on the part of the government that everything is fine. However, if things are slowing down, then perhaps we have problems we should look at.

We should be looking at Sudbury, I certainly would agree there; but what about a community that is going so fast it’s very difficult for the town officials to keep up with the kind of expansion taking place, as in Elliot Lake?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In connection with the Elliot Lake situation, as I have pointed out on many occasions we are not a line ministry. We don’t have the technical people, such as the Ministry of the Environment has for environmental problems or design engineers for highways or the input the Ministry of Housing would have; but that coordinating role is there and we are involved. While we are not there on a front-line basis, I think it’s fair to say we are included in those discussions. We don’t carry forward the thrust in the same way we would in Atikokan.

The government’s feeling is very clear in that here is a community which has an excellent contract with Ontario Hydro. That contract includes many of the amenities the workers will require; it’s all-inclusive. The programs are in place to assist a community like Elliot Lake. I do recognize the fact that they need some up-front money to get started. There is no question about that. I'm hopeful that will be resolved.

It’s difficult to compare the problems of Elliot Lake with Atikokan or even Pickle Lake. They are of a completely different magnitude. The ministries are directly involved. They have the programs in place. The mayor, Roger Taylor, is very much aware of the route he can follow, and lie is following it very aggressively. I’m sure that following the tabling of this report he will be more aggressive than ever, which is the way it should be.

Mr. Wildman: New Democrats are often aggressive.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He doesn’t brag about being a New Democrat, let’s make that clear.

Mr. Wildman: He ran once.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He doesn’t mention it any more; at least not in my company though maybe in yours. He is an excellent administrator for the community; I’m sure he will be there for a long time because he has the community at heart. I think it’s fair to say he knows his way around very effectively. I expect to be hearing more from the mayor in the not-too-distant future.

I say to you now that if he requires any co-ordinating responsibilities, while we don’t want to take on responsibility in a lead ministry concept in Elliot Lake, we would be prepared to assist him of course, and he is very much aware of that.

Mr. Bolan: Just arising from the minister’s answers to that, he says that his is not a line ministry in Elliot Lake but that he is included in discussions. In what capacity is the minister included in these discussions? He says that his presence is there. Just what is he doing there, or is his position not more redundant than anything else?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, we would be included in those very early discussions with the staff, the possibility that there are some discussions or some possibility of going the DREE route as an example, the DREE route, the Ontario-DREE agreement, if there is some way we can work in. I don’t think there is, but that possibility exists under our community priorities branch. There may be some special funding that Elliot Lake would require that would look to our community priority budget to fund. So if we can get that input early in the game then we know what’s going on from there. The actual delivery of the services is not our responsibility.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Minister, I want to go back to talking about planning. There was a cabinet committee formed a couple of years ago when the Inco layoffs were announced and there were repeated efforts to get information from the Treasurer, who was named chairman of that committee, and we tried to get some information from the Premier (Mr. Davis) with respect to the study that was supposed to be conducted by that cabinet committee.

Can the minister tell me what in fact happened? Did that committee sit at all? Have they got any long-term or short-term policies for those municipalities which are effected when mining companies decide it’s time to abandon the ship? I might say that both the Premier and the Treasurer have answered and I wanted to tell the minister what they have said. The Premier has indicated: “It’s got to be economically enticing for industries to stay in.”

Mr. Bolan: Viable.

Mr. Martel: Viable, yes. National Steel in Capreol made $6.5 million. That isn’t what we’re talking about when we ask what backup policies or what policies there are when a municipality is affected by a sudden shutdown of a one-industry town. What solutions has the minister got? It isn’t a case of giving the industry more money, because in the case of National Steel or the case of Inco, they were both making money and they left. Now what are the minister’s short-term policies that came out of that committee and what are the long term solutions that came out of that committee?

Don’t tell me about DREE agreements for the Sudbury basin because we’ve already got three industrial sites in Sudbury, so that isn’t going to help us. None of them is filled and none of them can attract anything. The problem of northeastern Ontario, as it is with northwestern Ontario, is that beyond extractive industries it’s very difficult if not near impossible to get secondary industry to locate. While the minister always indicates that I want to use a big stick, that’s not really the case at all, but his solution of handouts has not worked to bring secondary industry to the north.

What alternatives are there? The minister says: “Don’t use the big stick. That’s your way of doing it.” What is the minister’s? If he would be so kind to tell me I would know, because I have been hearing about secondary industry coming into the Sudbury basin since I was that high. We still haven’t got a secondary industry. We had a commissioner in Sudbury, they finally let him go just recently because after paying his high and fancy salary for three or four years they still hadn’t located anything there.

Mr. Bolan: What about Darcy McKeough?

Mr. Martel: Yes, that’s right. Darcy said there would be no secondary industry in northeastern Ontario for 20 years. I want to know what policy the minister has to attract secondary industry related to the natural resources which are being exploited, and while he might say: “Well, we don’t want the big stick approach,” can he tell me what approach he is going to use?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As the honourable member is very much aware, I believe the committee is still ongoing under a new chairman. The Minister of Natural Resources is the new chairman of that committee. I might say on this point, Mr. Chairman, that finding solutions for single-resource communities is not an easy thing. I think the honourable member will recognize that. It is not something where you sit down around a table and somebody comes up with an answer and you run off and you implement it. It’s just not that easy.

[4:00]

Mr. Bolan: The problems didn’t start today, Leo.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I know and it’s ongoing.

I remember vividly, and I am sure there are things that will escape my memory, but the 2001 funding is an example of what came out of that committee. The people of the city of Sudbury rallied together and I still marvel at the way they did rally together. I was pleased to see the honourable member there at the 2001 conference, standing up along with his colleagues from the Sudbury basin; cheering, applauding the Premier that night, at the university, with smiles --

Mr. Bolan: That was for TV.

Mr. Martel: That’s stretching it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You recall the evening well.

Mr. Mattel: I recall the evening well.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I was there and I enjoyed every minute of it; it was a pleasant experience. It was a pleasant experience to see a very community-oriented and initiated idea get off the ground and it certainly stemmed from discussions we had in that particular committee. The transportation idea for the Miner Liner also originated in those discussions we had. We looked into the economics of it in depth. So to say that the committee just sat and did nothing is entirely wrong. In fact, since we last spoke here, at which time the possibility of improved and increased secondary manufacturing for mining equipment in northern Ontario was brought up, I have taken it upon myself to make a couple of contacts with some of the major firms in Ontario and asked the very simple, positive question which I have asked a number of times before. I get the same answer, which has to do with the tariff condition, believe it or not, the federal tariff.

Mr. Mattel: There’s no tariff.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They tell me there is.

Mr. Mattel: No, if the equipment is not produced in Canada there is no tariff.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, but they can produce it outside of Canada much cheaper and be more competitive than if they were producing it here. If they produced it here they wouldn’t be able to compete with outside imports, so it makes it very difficult for them. They made it very clear that it is just competition on a world market situation. While Canada does have the expertise and the technical knowledge, the actual manufacturing can be done outside of Canada in other countries of the world and brought back here and sold here cheaper than we can produce it here.

It happens, I suppose, with television sets and with radios and a number of other things. It galls me, as well as members on the other side of the House. It bothers me, there’s no question about that. Particularly when we mill and mine the ore here, and refine it to a certain point. I think I should read into the record that North Bay Nugget editorial. At this point I think the member for Nipissing would like me to read into the record the Nugget editorial of May 24. He’s nodding; he’s concurring, I gather?

Mr. Bolan: Go ahead. My wife didn’t write it, I can assure you of that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have a great deal of respect for that northern Ontario newspaper. They look at things very objectively.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Even when Mike’s wife writes the article?

Mr. Bolan: That’s right; she only writes them on education.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There’s a little weakness once in a while, but I would say the greater percentage of the time the tone and the thrust is what I think what it should be. Anyway the editorial reads as such; and if you will hear with me, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read it into the record. It’s captioned “Mining Association Director Makes Some Excellent Points.” Does the member recall that editorial?

Mr. Mattel: No, I don’t get the North Bay Nugget.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I will read it to you then.

“Now that the election is history, we think the following opinions of Mr. John L. Bonus, managing director of the Mining Association of Canada deserve to be made known.

“Mr. Bonus commented on Ed Broadbent’s views in a letter to the editor of the Toronto Globe and Mail. In view of the importance of mining in northern Ontario, we feel Mr. Bonus makes some good points as follows:

“Mr. Broadbent’s argument is that for years we have been exploiting our resources in raw form, thus denying Canadians job opportunities which would be open to them if they processed those resources prior to export. He claims this practice is caused essentially by the large percentage of foreign control in the resource industries. With regard to mining, I offer the following observations.

“A substantial proportion of Canadian minerals are processed domestically before export or find their way into Canadian manufactured goods which are sold in Canada or exported. There are at present 16 smelters and 15 refineries operating in Canada which employ over 35,000 individuals in the further processing of raw ores. Between 60 to 70 per cent of all copper, silver and lead mined is processed into refined metal in Canada.

“Virtually all raw nickel produced in Canada is processed to some degree here at home, and 50 per cent is processed to refined metal. More than 86 per cent of the raw iron ore produced is processed to beneficiated ore that goes directly into the making of steel in Canadian steel mills. Canada’s zinc-reduction capacity is the third largest in the world, and about 50 per cent of production is domestically processed to refined metal.

“Unlike the other resource sectors, nonferrous metal mining, smelting and refining operations are approximately 70 per cent Canadian controlled. An even larger segment of the non-petroleum mineral industry is under exclusive Canadian management. More than 250,000 individual Canadians participate as direct shareholders of Canadian mining firms. In 1978, these companies paid dividends to shareholders totalling $371 million.

“There is absolutely nothing by way of legislation or constraints preventing a Canadian entrepreneur from purchasing a Canadian-mined mineral or producing from it a processed or a manufactured article or commodity for export. If there are not enough entrepreneurs to do so, it must be because they have concluded that opportunities are just not there to be exploited.

“Why? Because most large mineral-consuming countries or markets -- the United States, the European Economic Community, Japan -- typically impose tariffs or some form of non-tariff barriers on processed or manufactured mineral products to protect their own industries. Most raw materials imported into these markets enter duty-free.

“Why can we not impose on such markets a condition that if they want our minerals, they will have to purchase them in processed or manufactured form? Because we have no monopoly on supply.”

That’s why we can’t.

“Purchasers would have little difficulty in obtaining their mineral requirements elsewhere, and many new sources of supply are coming on stream. Canada can and does try to negotiate better access for its processed and manufactured goods, but her bargaining position is not all that strong.”

That lays out quite clearly the fact we don’t have a monopoly position in the world market situation.

Mr. Martel: We had the nickel monopoly for years.

Hon. Ms. Bernier: We are still producing just as much, but that has gone down to 30 per cent because the world is using that much more and they are getting it from other sources. Those are the problems we have got to realize, and we have got to be practical about it. Look at yourself in the mirror and say: “This is the problem.” You can’t just resolve it overnight.

I say to you while there is concern with single-resource communities and we share your concerns equally, we don’t really have any immediate answers at our fingertips. We do know there will always be places like Atikokan. Red Lake is still there; Geraldton is still there; Kirkland Lake is still there; they are all there. Sure they are not as large as they were before; but I can tell you one thing, that I was at Atikokan 30 years ago when they turned the first shovel of iron ore; and the people moved into that community and said: “We will be here for 30 years.”

They knew it 30 years ago; and they accepted the fact. They have gone through one generation. They have built their homes; they sent their kids to university, and they have had 30 years of a good life. Now they know; and they knew 30 years ago, so there isn’t the hard feeling in Atikokan you would lead us to believe. There is a new thrust in Atikokan, there is a new direction in Atikokan, and the government is there to help them.

The Hydro plant went into Atikokan. The new thrust with our lead ministry concept is working very closely with the industrial commissioner in Atikokan. New highways are being built in the area. There is the expansion of the airport and a greater emphasis on Quetico Park. All these things are happening; and they all revolve. Geraldton is a typical example. The population of Geraldton is larger today than it was when McLeod and Cockshutt was operating there, when the gold mining companies were all going great guns. Geraldton is larger today, and there is not a mine operating in Geraldton. it is a comfortable, little northern community. It has a good, strong base, and the security the community provides its people is second to none in northern Ontario.

I know the honourable member is concerned. We are concerned too. We are concerned about the forests; we are concerned about the nonrenewable resources. We are not going to stop looking for solutions -- not at all. While we don’t have the answers at our fingertips, I can assure him we will go on looking for those answers.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, the minister gets up and quotes from an article written by somebody having something to do with the mining association --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The great mining authority in Canada, Mr. Bonus.

Mr. Bolan: I can assure you that it wasn’t written by anyone at the Nugget.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The Nugget had the courage to carry it.

Mr. Martel: Yes, the courage. The Northern Miner had the courage to carry it too, I am sure.

The minister says, “We don’t have enough of it to control.” What did we do when we had 95 per cent of the world’s production of nickel? The Tories were in power then; I was in high school, and I can recall when the Tories came to power. We had 95 per cent up until 10 or 15 years ago.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We are still producing the same amount.

Mr. Martel: But we had 95 per cent. What did we extract from them that would stay in Ontario and in Canada? We do not even get all the refining. At the same time, Falconbridge has yet to refine a pound of nickel in Canada, after 45 years. That area produced 95 per cent of the world’s nickel. What did we bargain for? What did we get for the citizens of Ontario? What did we get for the city of Sudbury? What did we get in terms of not only refining but also some fabrication when 95 per cent of the world’s nickel came from that one area? One cannot play that game today. The deck has changed; the game has changed. We still produce more, but it only represents 35 per cent. But when we had it all, what did the government do?

Mr. Worton: The cards have changed; not the game.

Mr. Martel: They change the deck whenever they want. What did the government do then? Nothing. The same pious arguments were used when I came in here 12 years ago, I say to the minister. The same silly arguments were being used then as are being used now. The minister recalls 1969 when he brought in a motion about refining in Ontario.

What have we got? We have 38 exemptions continuing with mining -- 38 exemptions to continue to process abroad -- and we have 325,000 people in Ontario unemployed. We have had one one-industry town after another going down the pipe in those 12 years.

What have we done? I know the solution is not easy. Three years ago, when this ministry was created, I put forward a motion saying that, in the area of nonrenewable resources, part of the revenue from those extractive industries should be put into a fund -- I called it a “Tomorrow” fund, for want of a better name -- so that when we did have a one-industry town where the bottom fell out we would have some capital in the bank, so to speak, to establish some other alternative for that community. The minister recalls how the vote went: It went down the tube.

Part of the problem in northern Ontario -- and I spent four years on the select committee studying economic and cultural nationalism; we listened to all the businessmen, and they all said the same thing to us: “If we are a Canadian company, it is very difficult to get money from the Canadian banks.” The same business with an American owner gets a loan from a Canadian bank; a Canadian businessman owning a company, going to the bank, does not get the loan.

[4: 15]

A “Tomorrow” fund of some sort, taking a percentage of the tax we get on the revenue from the extraction of frees or minerals would establish a fund on which we could draw. You turned it down. That would be a long-term solution that should have come out of your committee.

In fact, virtually nothing came out of that committee. You talk about 2001.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Careful.

Mr. Martel: Do you think that $600,000 is going to replace 2,400 jobs at Inco and 750 jobs at Falconbridge? We all know that by the time the strike is over Inco will be where it wants to be with about 9,000 workers, which is about 2,000 fewer at the end of the layoffs. You’re not going to put opportunities for young people into northern Ontario with a cottage-type industry. It could pick up some of the slack, but surely it can’t be small, cottage-type industries that are going to resolve the massive layoffs that occur in one-industry communities like Sudbury.

I am still waiting for one of the solutions you were going to come up with. I was breathless when I heard you say that you were considering the establishment of rapid transit to Elliot Lake. I stood in this place nine years ago and said we should have centred regions where there would be only one municipality which would be served with all the infrastructure and we would move out to tap the resources. There are 800 or 900 people from Sudbury working in Elliot Lake and they don’t have any homes. Where is the rapid transit you talked about at the time of the layoffs two years ago.

Mr. Martel: He is going to study it to death. You had time to build it.

You’re going to have to increase the infrastructure in Elliot Lake. It’s a one-industry town too. What happens when you increase that infrastructure and that resource runs out? What do you do then? You watch those millions that you put into sewage and water treatment facilities go down the tube too? Or would you be better off going out tomorrow and driving the first spike to get a rapid transit system into Elliot Lake, which could carry those workers over to Elliot Lake in maybe an hour’s time. I am told that it is only 50 or 60 miles across country.

If we did that sort of planning and proceeded with it, one could say that we were getting over the hangup of building new towns at every mine site. There is already an infrastructure in Elliot Lake. There is a tremendous shortage of housing. I am not trying to detract from what is going on in Elliot Lake at all. I’m saying that 700, 800 or 900 of those workers probably live in Sudbury now. Let’s get a system whereby they can get to work and back and maintain their homes in Sudbury without costing us any more money except to put the transit system in.

Elliot Lake, like all mines, from the time you take the first shovelful out you are working towards the end of it. I know that and you know that. We continue to build town-sites. It is a waste of money. You are going to have to do it this time because it is simply too far away, we take that into consideration. But you have had two years to deal with the Inco layoffs and you are no further ahead with getting a rapid transit system into Elliot Lake so that we can keep those workers in Sudbury without having to start building a whole lot of stuff and see it go belly up in Sudbury.

Why is this? I would have hoped a great committee -- from the deliberations of which no one can lay out what you decided -- at least would make some decisions. As I stand here, I am convinced that committee has not really grappled with the problem. It has really not put down on paper what the solutions are or what are the short-term plans. When the minister says to me: “In Red Lake, they knew it was only going to last 30 years”; I asked the minister: “Who loses in that type of operation?” The only guy who loses is the average Joe. He goes in and builds his house. The mining industry, through profits and writeoffs and whatnots, gets out with money ahead. But the worker’s whole life-savings is one house.

Mr. Wildman: He says he is studying it. over a lifetime, unless he happens to be a lawyer. And what does he do? He can’t even sell it for the going rate.

In my hometown, with 140 homes for sale right now, the bottom has dropped out. They can’t commute between any mining community and Capreol to go to work, and they’re not going to find work in Sudbury. It’s not like Metro Toronto, where you can go somewhere else when you lose 250 jobs. You can’t commute up there. The bottom drops out. The guy loses his shirt.

The mining industry never loses. The workers lose. They lose because they put a lot of money into a home, and when the bottom drops out, they get nothing, or relatively very little.

And we have no solutions. That committee didn’t have short-term solutions and I don’t think it’s got long-term solutions. I wish the minister would produce them if he has. I wish he would bring over for us tomorrow night what it is that’s the short-term policy that came out of that committee and what --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I just told you.

Mr. Martel: Don’t tell me 2001 is the short-term solution for the problems of the city of Sudbury. That’s just ridiculous. It might help, but it’s not the solution to 3,150 jobs from the union, and how many from management. That’s the solution? You can’t be serious.

Let me turn to the other one, the production of mining equipment. It took my staff six months to be able to put that together. Everywhere we phoned it was most difficult to try and get any information. We wrote to every mining company in the province about where they were purchasing most of their equipment. We got four answers from Inco, Falconbridge, Noranda, and I believe Denison. They were all discouraging.

In fact, before the select committee J. Edwin Carter from Inco said we shouldn’t get into mining equipment in this part of the world because it’s cyclical too.

The primary producing countries are Sweden, Germany and the United States. All of those have wages as high as Canada. The real problem is tariffs. If the equipment isn’t produced in Canada it comes into Canada tariff-free. The only people who are smart enough to overcome that are the Japanese. They allow raw material in tariff-free. In fact the more you process it, the higher the tariff.

Why do they want it that way? They want jobs for their people. So they don’t levy any tariffs if you just take it out.

I’m told, for example, they don’t even limb trees from British Columbia anymore, They just throw them in the boat and away you go. They got around nickel. They went in with Inco and they’ve established a firm in Japan which is partially owned by International Nickel to get at Indonesia.

What do we do? We can’t even go into a field that’s a natural for us, mining equipment. It’s a natural for us because we have the internal market. We should be smart enough to set up tax policies which would encourage the purchase of Canadian-produced equipment.

But we don’t do that either. We simply make a few phone calls and the company says no, it’s not viable. I think it is viable. The statistics show ns with a trade deficit in all mining equipment of $1.6 billion annually. If that isn’t viable for us to get involved in, there is something wrong. That is what I say when I say to the minister nobody’s talking about a big stick, but this government, based on two select committee reports, should get off its backside and start to bring together the expertise that would see the development of that type of industry in Canada and in Ontario, particularly northern Ontario, where we have a school of mining, where we have the resources, where we have such a desperate need for some secondary industry. I suspect Jarvis Clark is managing to start out with some proper type of government -- and I don’t mean intervention, but government involvement. We might expand that a lot larger. We might encourage it. As I understand it, they primarily bring the parts in --

Mr. Bolan: They make everything right there.

Mr. Martel: Do they make the parts too? I was told not. That’s good. That’s what we should be moving to. That represents just what we should be going to. This government should be out there front and centre trying to encourage that whole field in northern Ontario, because everything is there. We also happen to be the only country that imports the amount of mining equipment that is imported into this country. No other country even comes close to us, yet we produce as much in mineral wealth as the United States. We don’t see the Americans importing it all. They manufacture some.

We have a production capacity in mineral wealth nearly as great as the United States and we import our equipment from them. They’re smarter than us. They make it there themselves. The minister says I want to use a big club, but when the private sector doesn’t want to do things we in this country immediately throw our hands up in despair. Or we do what the Minister of Industry and Tourism is doing, we try to buy it in. We can’t buy it in. We spent several million dollars on a select committee, which several of the minister’s colleagues were on, which said: “No, discourage that sort of thing. Encourage investment, hut portfolio investment, not equity.” We don’t. His colleagues signed that. Maybe he should read the report some day.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You wrote it.

Mr. Martel: I didn’t write the report. My colleague, the former member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) and I wrote it. If your seven colleagues were swung over by my persuasive arguments, and they signed the document --

Mr. Bolan: More power to you.

Mr. Martel: That’s right -- then I did a good job. I’m just saying that there’s a field that two select committees -- the last one had 18 members -- identified mining equipment. My friend from Nipissing was on that select committee. There were nine of the minister’s colleagues on that and they said mining equipment, because of the recital I gave last week of the reasons why. I say if the private sector says no all by itself, what’s wrong with us getting involved with them and saying yes for the benefit of Canada. For the amount of mining we do, we just think it’s absolutely necessary.

We might go in as a partner; we might give them some money just to be nice. We might lend them some money. We might provide grants, but we’ve got to start it in a large way to make a viable industry, not only for internal consumption but for export purposes, because if Sweden, with only nine million people, can become one of the leading producers in that field, Ontario is almost that big.

Mr. Makarchuk: No, no; Sweden is smaller.

Mr. Martel: I think they have nine million people though.

Mr. Makarchuk: Less than Ontario though.

Mr. Martel: Less than Ontario, so what’s wrong with us?

Mr. Laughren: Global product mandate.

Mr. Martel: I want to tell the minister, before he has a bird about Sweden, there is more free enterprise in Sweden than there is in Canada. His colleagues were surprised when they learned that when we went to Sweden. What do you do anyway? You buy house insurance, fire insurance, job insurance and medical insurance. You talk about cradle to the grave, only we give it to the free enterprise system in this society, but it’s protection from the cradle to the grave anyway. That’s all nonsense. Those countries were able to develop, to become leaders in mining equipment and in automobiles. They export two cars --

[4:30]

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Three hundred years of non-participation in any kind of war certainly helped them, particularly when they could sell the instruments of war to other people.

Mr. Martel: Do you know what my friends at Inco were doing?

Mr. Wildman: Inco was selling to both sides.

Mr. Martel: Let me tell you how we got a refinery at Port Colborne. In 1916 we found Inco loading U-boats in New York. That’s how come dear old Inco got so generous and came to Ontario and built the refinery at Port Colborne -- when they finally got caught loading U-boats in the United States in 1916. Don’t tell me about their great patriotism. It was non-existent.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I didn't say anything about patriotism. You were asking why Sweden was able to do certain things.

Mr. Martel: Because government got involved with the private sector to encourage the production of mining equipment. It got automobiles, and they now export two makes. We aren’t in any of that. All I’m suggesting is that if there is a way you want to help northern Ontario, the key sector is to move to a field such as mining equipment. I don’t care how, just as long as we do it.

There are suggestions I made several years ago which, had we carried them out then, would have provided some of the funding to put up some of the capital in order to get it established. I said let’s establish a “tomorrow” fund from the returns paid to the province from the use of our resources so we would have a bankroll when things go badly in those communities. We haven’t done any of those things.

I come back to where I started. I say to the minister I have heard for the 12 years I’ve been here that we’re going to get something in the north, and we haven’t. I have heard before that we’re going to get secondary industry in the north and we really have not. We have continued to exploit primarily.

When the free-enterprise system, as you like to describe it, decides it’s not going there, what are the alternatives? It’s not a case of a big stick. Is there no alternative where government can get involved?

You do it all the time. When you give Ford $68 million, that’s a type of involvement. Don’t tell me about the big stick. All you’re doing is paying for it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It wasn’t $68 million.

Mr. Martel: Well, the federal government gave them $40 million and you gave them $28 million for a total of how much? Was that government involvement?

There is only one taxpayer in this country. It doesn't matter whether it came from you or from the feds, there’s only one taxpayer.

Mr. Wildman: The Premier himself said that today.

Mr. Martel: Ml I’m saying is that you have the strangest philosophy over there. When it doesn’t suit you, you say, “Ah, but you guys want to interfere using the big stick,” or, “You’re interfering in the free enterprise system.” But then you turn around and what do you say? You say, “Here, free enterprise, here’s 68 million bucks, compliments of the people of Ontario.”

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Why? Why did we do that?

Mr. Martel: I suspect because Ford threatened to go somewhere else. Sure, you think you can play the game of Russian roulette with those big companies against the United States, and I tell you you’re crazy.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Are you against Ford?

Mr. Martel: No, no; you see, it’s an either-or proposition.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well you can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Martel: Why? I would say to them, “Look, companies, we in this country have decided we’re going to go a different route. We’re going to put up the capital we’re giving to you, but instead of taking $68 million and giving it to Ford, we’re going to plink $68 million into the development of a mining equipment corporation.”

We’ll not only have the jobs. You see, what Ford doesn’t do in this country is research and development. It doesn’t do any research and development in Canada; it’s all done in Dearborn. We would say to our mining equipment company, “Patent rights will belong to us. Royalty fees will be paid here. Profits will be paid here. Jobs will remain here. Offshoots from your research and development will be produced here.”

You can’t do that with Ford, because R and D is done there; you pay service to them; royalties go there; offshoots from R and D are produced there.

Why don’t we take our money and start to manufacture some of that raw material into a finished commodity for our own use here and for export purposes? One of the key areas is mining equipment. The minister’s response is, “You can’t have it both ways. You interfere in the free enterprise system.

You guys want to use a big stick.” Yet you use all those things yourself when it’s convenient. The government pumps money into the free enterprise system and calls it free enterprise; I call that socialism. If you want to be a free enterpriser, for God’s sake, that’s fine, but don’t ask the government for a handout.

Mr. Bolan: Be consistent.

Mr. Martel: Yes, where is there free enterprise when you give dear old Ford $68 million? That’s not free enterprise; that’s socialism.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You want the union dues from it.

Mr. Martel: I get lots of union dues; oh my God, do we ever. I wish I did get the union does the minister speaks about.

But we can’t have it both ways and we’ve got to specialize in this country. We’ve got to look in certain directions where we can go and invest our money soundly where we will get all of the benefits. Ford doesn’t give us that. It gives us short-term jobs. That’s what 21 reports from the select committee said. We can continue to go down that road and forever we’ll continue to have the same type of problems; or we can make a change, we can start to specialize and become very selective in what we produce.

Obviously, we haven’t learned in the past 50 years what always happens with foreign investments. For those of us in northern Ontario it continues to be doom and gloom. The minister says no, it’s all bright. His own four children have had to leave the area because they couldn’t find work. They couldn’t find work in northern Ontario If they don’t want to be miners or cut trees they are out. They leave town. They go to Alberta. Is that where they have gone?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They got married and their husbands carried them off.

Mr. Martel: Their husbands couldn’t find jobs. Their husbands probably came to northern Ontario in the first place and couldn’t stay there because there’s nothing beyond extraction. There’s nothing for women, and the minister has no plans, unfortunately.

The Toronto-centred region sums it all up. Do you recall that? The Toronto-centred region created a great fanfare in the House here. They called a meeting down at the Ontario Science Centre. John Robarts was there and all the cabinet ministers were there. They unfolded what was called the Toronto-centred region plan. I recall one sentence on page four. It sunk in here. It said: “The Toronto-centred region plan: Northern Ontario will continue to be the source of raw material for the megalopolis between Chicago, Toronto and New York.” That’s what it was in 1969. That’s what it was according to Darcy McKeough in the last provincial election. That’s what it continues to be today. Under this government that’s what it will continue to be for northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We’ve been through this on many occasions.

Mr. Martel: Nothing changes.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, a lot of things have changed in northern Ontario, which the member very conveniently forgets or ignores. He doesn’t want to mention the things that are happening up there. As I mentioned before, when I first came here I heard exactly that kind of a speech when I was a back bencher.

Mr. Martel: Where are your children?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In Canada.

Mr. Martel: Where?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Enjoying life.

Mr. Martel: Why did they have to leave northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Because they got married and got carted away by their husbands, if you want to know the truth. If their husbands are from Alberta what can I do? They are living on a farm raising cattle.

Mr. Martel: They couldn’t find a job in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They come back on a pretty regular basis.

Mr. Martel: That’s all they can do.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are out there enjoying the good things that the province of Alberta has to offer, not in the oil fields but in the cattle-raising business. The member for Sudbury East lives in a never-never land really. He’s got blinkers on. He just won’t face up to the realities of society and of the world the way it operates.

Mr. Martel: In Sudbury, 3,500 people are laid off.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He’d like to box himself into a little wee area of Ontario and Canada and say we’re going to do this and that and to hell with the rest of the world. That’s the attitude, providing we do what we want to do. It doesn’t work that way.

Mr. Young: The rest of the world operates the way Mr. Martel said it does.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It doesn’t work that way. There are no restrictions. There are no laws to stop anybody from getting into the manufacture of mining equipment in this province, in this country. There is nothing to stop anybody. We have got entrepreneurs in this country who will do everything, and will build everything from a shovel to a locomotive to an articulated bus. The entrepreneurs are there. Now there is something wrong.

Mr. Mattel: There isn’t a diesel motor produced in Canada.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well they are manufactured -- they are assembled here.

Mr. Martel: There is not a diesel motor produced in Canada.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well maybe not a motor specifically; but there may be something wrong if there isn’t, the economics are not there to justify it. There must be something wrong because I have great faith in the free enterprise system, to the extent that if there is a dollar to be exploited, they will manufacture something here and exploit that buck for the benefit of our people. I’m sure they will, but there is an exchange to which to relate.

Mr. Martel: Why have we got a deficit of $1.6 billion in mining equipment?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That deficit will be changed.

Mr. Martel: When?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It started on May 22. There will be a turnaround. If we are around here four of five years from now I will bring to the honourable member’s attention the fact things have changed I . The item to which you referred, tariffs, may well be changed also, but the free enterprise spirit is alive and well and booming. It brought us as a nation 112 years of good solid type of development and a standard of living that’s second to none in the world. It’s there.

Mr. Mattel: It’s about eighth.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Ah no; the socialists say eighth but they always like to say that. They like to compare us with those lower ones --

Mr. Wildman: The Senate of Canada says eighth.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- but I am satisfied we are up in the twos and threes. I certainly will ran my faith in the free enterprise system.

Mr. Young: You close your eyes to the facts.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: When it can be proven economically sound and of course profitable -- and there’s nothing wrong with the word “profit” as far as I am concerned; if there is a profit to be made in the manufacture of the product then we will see some development in that line. As I said earlier, we don’t have an immediate and magic answer for the single-resource communities. I don’t think any of you people over there have any answers. If you do, come forward with them.

Mr. Martel: I did. I moved one a few years ago and you let it go.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I know, the “tomorrow” fund; that hairy-scary plan, the “tomorrow” fund. Nobody has accepted it.

Mr. Martel: Peter Lougheed has a Heritage Fund worth $4 billion.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If we had the wealth the province of Alberta has I am sure --

Mr. Martel: We had it; we just blew it. Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is all our wealth. It is the province of Ontario’s wealth that’s out there in that Heritage Fund, $4.3 billion --

Mr. Young: We had it for 30 or 50 years and you did nothing with it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- for which the province of Ontario has paid.

Mr. Martel: Ayatollah Lougheed.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I appreciate constructive criticism, and certainly if the honourable members have something positive we can look at we would be glad to review it.

Mr. Martel: What’s wrong with a fund from the taxes on the resource sector and putting it away?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am not here to debate the “tomorrow” fund; I just think it’s a funny money plan.

Mr. Martel: A funny money plan?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, funny money; something like the Social Credit would come out with.

Mr. Martel: What’s the difference between a Socred and a Tory?

Mr. Bolan: They have more money out there.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh there is a little difference, a little financial difference there. It’s a kind of a funny money thing.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, the northern communities, the single-resource communities are there. Sure some of them are going through some readjustment periods. I will grant that, but I will say to you now, and I will say it again, that there will always be an Atikokan; there will always be a Geraldton and Kirkland Lake. There will be the Red Lakes; and there will be the Pickle Lakes. Certainly this government will be there to listen to any constructive ideas that may come forward from all sides of the House that can answer this very serious problem.

It applies not only in the province of Ontario. There are problems in the province of Quebec. You go to Saskatchewan and they have their problems in northern Saskatchewan too, and they haven’t come up with any answers. They have no answers in Saskatchewan. I have been there on many occasions.

[4:45]

Go to the province of Alberta. What are they paying a gallon in northern Alberta? A dollar and twenty cents a gallon in northern Alberta; the same price we are paying in northern Ontario. They have problems there too that they have not resolved, so don’t say all the problems are in northern Ontario.

Mr. Bolan: I would just like to make a few remarks with respect to the one-industry communities which we have in northern Ontario and what I feel is the obligation of the state, the obligation of government, towards these one-industry communities. These, of course, are born out of the fact that in northern Ontario we do have the natural resources out of which these communities are created. Let’s take, for example, Elliot Lake. What you have there is a massive investment not only on the part of free enterprise, but also on the part of the state, on the part of society, in the form of literally -- in Elliot Lake -- millions of tax dollars which are put into the services.

I speak of the sewage treatment plants, I speak of the sidewalks, I speak of the highways, I speak of the schools, I speak of the municipal buildings -- all of those things which grow up into making a community, and to me there is a responsibility on the part of the state to I protect that investment, because really you do have an investment in these communities, and that investment is in the form of hard dollars and cents which come from the taxpayer and have gone in to put in the services.

Unless you have some kind of plan, looking 2.5 or 30 years down the line, or whatever the life expectancy is of that particular community, then I think that you really are not doing service to your investment and that you are not protecting your investment. As the state grows, as the province develops, there is an obligation on the government to see to it that when there comes a time for relocation of an industry, or when there comes a time for the creation of a new industry in the province, or if an investor or a manufacturer comes in and says: “We have a plan here which is going to require a certain size of community, a certain number of people, which can do it as required,” then I think there is an obligation on the part of the province to see to it that these are directed towards these one-industry communities.

As I say, if you are going to spend millions of dollars in these areas without having some kind of ongoing contingency plan to come to these communities and to make room for the infusion of labour, for the infusion of other capital, then you really are not hedging your bet, and really your bet is people.

Whether you know this or not, Mr. Minister, there has been a continual drain of our young people from northern Ontario, and I don’t blame them, because there is not much going for them in northern Ontario. You cite your own family as an example. My two oldest ones are no longer in northern Ontario; there is nothing there for them. As the member for Sudbury East says, unless you are a miner, or you cut trees, or you are a professional, there really is not that much to attract or to keep a young person in northern Ontario, and once we have lost our youth we have lost the battle.

While I am on that, I might also say of the quotation made by the member for Sudbury East about northern Ontario being the supplier of the area from Chicago, that is what is called the hinterland theory. That is a well-espoused theory which I think has probably been practised better in Ontario than in any other region. It is a theory which is accepted by many governments. The theory is that the area up here, the hinterland, is the resource pool from which everything is drawn to feed the large growth areas at the bottom.

I remember speaking about this to an economist last year, a chap from Sudbury. I said, “Surely there is something which can be done to get away from this hinterland theory. Certainly there is something which can be done by governments to try to do something for these areas which are more or less designated as hinterland.” In his opinion the horse was out of the barn. There was nothing which could be done unless steps were taken immediately. Even then we are looking at 15 or 20 years down the line.

It is very discouraging. I am sure the minister must find this discouraging himself. I have said this before, I am going to say it again -- I think everybody in the House has said it at one time or another over the past two years. It is very discouraging to hear a minister of the crown, a former Treasurer, say for all intents and purposes he was not interested in the growth and development of secondary industry in northern Ontario. Even the minister must find that very disturbing. I know I find it very disturbing because it seems to be a reaffirmation of the hinterland theory.

If that is going to be the policy and that is going to be followed, then on these very expensive projects, these expensive communities into which we have put millions of dollars, we simply have to accept the ghost-town theory, which to me is a natural flow from the hinterland theory. That is really the type of thing that has been going on, as the minister knows himself, in this province.

I do not think anybody purposely sits down and designs a ghost town. I think that some place down the line they expect a miracle will happen.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Show me a ghost town in northern Ontario.

Mr. Bolan: Cobalt.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s not a ghost town. Come on!

Mr. Bolan: Yes, Cobalt is. I come from Cobalt and I can tell the minister tight now --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Tell the people of Cobalt that.

Mr. Bolan: They know it too. I can tell the minister tight now that one can see what happened there and what happened in many of the other mining communities in northern Ontario.

What concerns me more than anything else, even today, is the attitude which the minister seems to be taking towards the one-industry towns. The minister thinks Conference 2001 is the answer to everything. I certainly haven’t seen anything positive or anything really constructive come from that. I really think it is incumbent upon our government to see to it that proper measures are taken to induce other industries to open in these one-industry towns.

I am not going to be repetitive and say everything which the member for Sudbury East said about the mining industry or about mining equipment but it is an example of what can be done if the need is identified. He mentioned a company in North Bay, Jarvis Clark, as a typical example of two young men getting together and saying, “We feel there is a need for a particular kind of mining equipment.” As the member knows, this really revolutionized extraction in mines -- the scoop tram and the jumbos and other equipment which flowed from that.

The fact remains that was a good example of free enterprise identifying a market. They did it, incidentally, without one cent of government money. They have gone through some expansionary programs now which have required funding from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, but the initial program was strictly on their own.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Because the investment climate was there.

Mr. Bolan: Yes. But with the world market being what it is today, in areas such as mining equipment, logging equipment and pulp and paper equipment, there is no reason why we can’t get on the bandwagon. There is no reason we can’t start doing those things today that are going to give us some benefits, not three or five years from now, but 10 or 15 years from now. That’s how we are going to protect our one-industry towns. We have to give them something other than what they have now; otherwise, we are going to see their decline.

Going back to what I said earlier, we are also going to see a decline in the population. The population in northern Ontario has been going down. The population of North Bay is down something like 2,000 over the past while. I was reading the ministry’s directory of organized and unorganized communities in northern Ontario. It shows the population of North Bay at about 47,000, whereas the signs on the approaches to the city still have the old census figure of 50,000, That is a worrisome thing, because that area is not a one-industry town. If there is any area in northern Ontario that is diversified, it is North Bay. I am sure the minister is aware of that. When we look at all the various industries there, it is really quite a tribute in that sense to northern Ontario. It is an example of what can be done. But, in spite of this, we still have this frightening prospect of a dwindling population.

I am not saying there are any magical solutions to this problem. I have to agree with the minister when he says that it is a very difficult problem, without any quick cure. But what a government should do is to take not just a short-term approach, but a long-term approach. In that way, while there still is health in many of these communities, we can start looking at other areas and at other industries which would blend in with whatever a particular community is developing. I would hope that 20 or 30 years from now we would be able to say that the population was going up; there was more stability. Isn’t that what it really is all about: trying to bring into northern Ontario a more equitable system?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member’s comments. I know his concern for single-resource communities is sincere. It is one that we all share, and I think we are all trying to find solutions.

I can’t help but think of the government’s desire to do certain things for certain communities in northern Ontario. We stand up in this Legislature on many occasions and say we want a broader economic base for many of these communities; we want more job opportunities in more of these communities; the north needs this type of recognition and all kinds of opportunities.

But what happens when the government does do something? For instance, the Hydro plant at Atikokan is a typical example; that is a $500-million development, and the opposition came from the community. The city of Thunder Bay opposed it, much to my surprise and shock. I almost fell off my chair when I heard that the council of Thunder Bay had opposed the development of that Hydro plant which would provide 250 to 300 jobs on an ongoing basis.

In Red Lake, a single-industry community, we had the Reed Paper proposal for a $400-million pulp and paper development in the Ear Falls-Red Lake area that those 6,000 people had been waiting for for 20 years; they had been promised it for 20 years. The renewable resources are there. We had a proposal for the government to look at. It was just a proposal, just a memorandum of understanding, that the government would look at. What did the socialists do?

[5:00]

Mr. Wildman: There was a question about whether or not they were renewable.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They didn’t say let’s have a look at it. That’s all the government wanted to do, to see if it would support an industry of that size. The Liberal Party wasn’t that far behind the socialists, believe me. They were waffling because there were some political marks to make. The government had the courage to move ahead and work nut a memorandum of understanding to look at 19,000 square miles in the hope that there were sufficient renewable resources. If there weren’t there would be a paring back on that proposal, that was the clear understanding.

All the environmental concerns would be looked after. All the economic concerns would be on the table to look at; everybody would have an opportunity. But the political pressure that came from this Legislature against that proposal, as you all recall, was horrendous.

Minaki is a typical example. There are 200 or 300 people there living off one industry, tourism. Minaki Lodge is a fantastic development. The original development was proceeded with by the CNR back in 1926. It was going on for years. It was something of a landmark in northwestern Ontario. The government became involved, I suppose you might say through the back door, not though the front door, because we had an NODC loan that we had to foreclose on. Rather than lose that and see the lodge go down the drain and lose the economic impetus that would be gained from the further development and expansion of that lodge, the government stepped in. The reaction we got from members of this Legislature was that it’s a white elephant. They were not worried about the 250 jobs it will have on a year-round basis.

Mr. Wildman: Have you got an agreement yet?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They said it’s wrong for northern Ontario. Now they sit there and tell me we should have a diversified economy.

Mr. Wildman: You haven’t got an agreement yet.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have a diversified economy, and we want more industry. My God, the government is trying. We’re coming forward with proposals. I would love you to get on the bandwagon and say let’s get on with the job; let’s support this proposal. It would create jobs; it would use the resources of northern Ontario for the benefit of northerners. But we didn’t get that reaction.

Do you remember Maple Mountain? Do you remember how the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) pleaded with this Legislature to get on with the Maple Mountain and how we got laughed out because it was a pie in the sky? He talked about an Ontario Place in the north. You shot down that one. Do you remember King Mountain?

Mr. Wildman: I was going to ask you about that one.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: King Mountain was another one. I hope you’re not against King Mountain.

Mr. Wildman: I’ve never been there.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Great, I love to hear that, that’s the kind of enthusiasm I love. It’s needed up there. I think with those kinds of words we can get on with the job of doing things for northern Ontario.

I remember Old Fort William; how the Globe and Mail took after us about Old Fort William and how the public accounts committee reviewed every invoice -- which is right; I’m not saying it’s wrong, I think they should. All those government things should be looked at very carefully. But consider the hoops we have to go through, instead of having members opposite jumping on the bandwagon to say this is a good thing for northern Ontario as it will provide jobs and it will use the resources we have. I don’t think we can go out tomorrow and get the Ford Motor Company to establish up in Red Lake, much as I’d like to. But there are other things we can do up there by using the natural resources that are there. That’s what we’re proposing to do.

When we come forward with these suggestions, don’t pooh-pooh the idea.

Mr. Wildman: What about fabricating those resources?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Don’t look for political marks up north. Get on the bandwagon I and say this is a positive thing. There are jobs up there and there are people up there. Tell them, don’t tell me down here and play to the southern Ontario media. Go up there and tell them and see what they say.

You know what happened at Minaki. You know what happened to the Reed Paper proposal. The reaction up there was totally different from what it was down here. Things are different there.

I plead with the members from northern Ontario, when we do come forward with positive suggestions that will improve the economic life and improve the economic base of these communities to join with us. Join with us and say that this is something that makes sense. Let’s get on with the job of improving northern Ontario; together we can do it.

Mr. Wildman: I want to respond to a couple of things the minister has just said. First, it seems to me that he misses the point that was being made by my colleague from Sudbury East that as long as we just -- and I underline the word “just” -- depend on the extraction and exportation of our natural resources, we’re also exporting jobs. Once those resources, if they are non-renewable, run out or if they are renewable resources which we don’t take care to renew at an adequate rate, once they run out, then there are no more jobs.

The minister and his colleague, the Minister of Education, asked if there were any ghost towns in northern Ontario. I can give you some examples.

Two years ago I was invited to go to Goudreau. I don’t know whether the minister has ever heard of Goudreau. He probably hasn’t because it’s a ghost town.

Goudreau is about 13 miles north of Hawk Junction on the AGR line in my riding. There are six people living in Goudreau now and they are the AGR section gang. But Goudreau, in 1910, had 3,000 people.

The reason I was invited to go there was because there are a number of abandoned iron ore pits, old mining operations, that are now filled up with water. They appeared to be leaching out into the Hawk river system and were poisoning the fish. I was asked to go in by the head of the section gang, a Mr. Smedts, who lives there and has lived there for 20 some years. I went in.

The only way you can get into Goudreau is by train from Hawk. One goes up one way one day and back the next. I went in and stayed overnight at the Smedts’ place. There is an old hotel there too -- well, it’s burned down now but there used to be a hotel there -- and there are about four or five houses and a station. That’s it.

When we went to go to look at the pits we got into Mr. Smedts’ old truck; a very large four-wheel-drive truck. He has a great big bumper on the front of it. The purpose of the bumper, apparently, is so that he can drive through the bush without having to avoid the frees, but we took off and we drove down what was apparently, at one time, a street. It was covered with small trees -- we knocked down a number of them, I’m afraid. We drove through what had been a town. There were foundations all over the place. There had been 3,000 people there prior to the First World War.

You ask me where there are ghost towns? Goudreau is an example of what happens when a resource runs out and when there is no forward planning as to what is going to be done to ensure that those people have a viable choice, other than just leaving, and leaving everything behind, which is what happened there.

Today that doesn’t happen in the same way because we have a number of social programs that have replaced that. We have things like unemployment insurance. We have welfare, and so on, that help tide people over. In those days, if you didn’t leave immediately you starved unless you could get by by hunting. It may not be as blatant today, but the same kinds of things happen.

I think, too, of other communities in my riding. I think of Blind River, for instance. Blind River is by no means a ghost town. It’s a vibrant community. It’s dependent on tourism and government ministries. It has a large number of people now commuting to Elliot Lake to work in the mines there. But at one time it was one of the largest lumber operations in North America. What happened? That resource, the white pine, was decimated. It was shipped out -- mostly to the Boston area at that time. Then, of course, they had the Mississagi fire.

Nothing remains of that lumber operation. We have a small veneer operation going there, but its future is doubtful, according to the Ministry of Natural Resources, in terms of more than seven years. That again is the kind of example we can point to.

As a matter of fact, there are the Dubreuil brothers -- I know the minister knows the Dubreuils. They are a very hardworking group of men who have a lumber operation and sawmill operation in northern Ontario -- chips and so on. But their history is an example of the vagabond approach that in the past has been the history of northern Ontario, moving from one area to another as needed, and taking with them a large number of people who have stayed with them for a long period of time. Now they’ve established a community which is called Dubreuliville, which is a more permanent community and which they are trying to make permanent, and which is developing into a municipality. In the past, that hasn’t been the case. They used to be at Magpie. They went to Magpie first and then they shifted.

You could even look at a community in my riding which might be considered the most prosperous of all the communities in my riding -- I’m not including Sank Ste. Marie, of course, because that isn’t in my riding, although a large number of people in the environs of that community live in my riding and commute back and forth. But if you look at my riding itself the most prosperous community is probably Wawa. It’s the largest community. In terms of southern Ontario, it’s not a very big community. It only has 5,000 people.

When you look at Wawa, it’s really just a resource-based community. The main reason, the real reason, for Wawa is the iron ore. Algoma Ore first started out and had pits at Goudreau at one time, which they developed, and then they had the Helen Mine. What happens to Wawa when the iron ore is finished? They used to have a gold mine up there. It’s gone. It’s not in operation.

They also have tourism in Wawa, a large amount of tourism, largely because of the Trans-Canada Highway, but it’s a resource-based industry as well. The minister knows the problems we are facing in northeastern Ontario right now with the lower numbers of fish being caught and the problems of game management as more and more areas become more readily accessible. What happens to the jobs in tourism, unless we are able to adapt tourism in some way so that it isn’t so dependent on wild life in northern Ontario?

Even a very vibrant and prosperous community like Wawa is really facing hard times in the future unless there are further developments. When you look at it in terms of tourism and when you look at the problem of acid rain, unless the federal government and the American government as well as the provincial government get involved in solving that problem, we are going to have even more serious problems for tourism in northern Ontario.

Mr. Young: If the gas prices go up, you’ll have still more problems.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, gas prices have already lowered the number of tourists in our area in the past.

Look at another community in my riding, which I have mentioned twice already in these estimates and I haven’t had an answer from the minister yet about it, and that is Missanabie. Missanabie is a very old community. It was established first by the Hudson’s Bay Company. It was a trading area. Then the Canadian Pacific Railway went through there and established a community there, and it was a railway community. Then they got into lumbering, and now there is tourism as well.

If that lumber mill becomes a less viable operation, is sold or is burned down, what happens to it? I would be interested to know what this ministry is doing about Missanabie, and I have asked that before during these estimates. Are the new owners, Lafreniere from Chapleau, going to re-establish a mill in Missanabie, or are they going to build in Chapleau, as a Ministry of Industry and Tourism official indicated to one of my assistants last week? If that happens, what happens to Missanabie? Or, is it important to this government for that community and those residents to continue there?

The minister really misses the whole point. The point is that we are not opposed to resource development in northern Ontario, but we want coupled with it the processing of those resources and the fabrication, because that is where the jobs are. There are more jobs in manufacturing than there are in resource extraction. The Americans understand it, the Europeans understand it and the Japanese understand it. The Japanese have one of the best economies in the world and they don’t have any resources, because they import our resources and they import resources from the third world.

Our whole approach to development in northern Ontario and Ontario in general, and Canada for that matter, has tended to be the development that is characteristic of the third world. We need capital and we want a higher standard of living, so what do we do? We take the short route to it by exporting our resources and exporting along with that all the manufacturing jobs that result from them.

[5:15]

Some other countries haven’t taken that route, and they have paid the price, I’ll admit. They have a lower standard of living. Look at Mexico; Mexico now faces the possibility of improving its situation and improving its standard of living because of the oil finds, but it’s been a long time in developing. I’ll admit that, but I don’t see any will on the part of this government or of the government in Ottawa, of whatever political stripe, to try to turn that situation around.

The minister asked me if there were any ghost towns in northern Ontario. There are. There are other communities which are political ghost towns. Nowadays we don’t have ghost towns where everything becomes vacant. What happens is, we end up with people on welfare; we end up with people surviving from hand to mouth on seasonal jobs. Frankly, I think that’s another kind of ghost town. What we need is viable industry.

The minister mentions things like Minaki. Minaki is just another resource industry, as the minister himself says. He indicates that the opposition was responsible in some way for the problems of Minaki. The fact is that the government got involved because the entrepreneur who was involved was in trouble. The government itself is having trouble right now -- and has had in unloading Minaki. To say that when we criticize the government for investing the amount of money they did there, in terms of asking what viable future there is for Minaki, ignores that.

As a matter of fact, I have a letter from the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), dated March 21. He starts off by saying: “The negotiations between the board of directors of Minaki Lodge and the potential private-sector operators are confidential.” But he goes on to say: “The board informs me they are presently negotiating three agreements with the private sector. They include technical services, management and reservation referrals.

“No doubt you have read of Fred Boyer’s appointment as president and chief operating executive of the company. I think that’s an indication of how close we believe we are to final agreements.” For more than a year the minister has been giving me that kind of reply when I try to find out what’s happening with Minaki.

Is the government close to any kind of an agreement? Is it a viable operation? If the minister can show it’s a viable operation, he won’t run into the kind of criticism he has been complaining about. But to pour money in without any assurance that there’s going to be a return on that, even in terms of ongoing jobs, is not an adequate response from this government.

I wonder also, when the minister mentions Maple Mountain and King Mountain in the same breath, whether he thinks they are equivalent operations and proposals.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They sound the same.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, they sound the same. That’s another interesting point, about King Mountain. Last fall we had a statement saying that we would have some kind of indication in the near future about King Mountain. Then in January, I asked what was happening and was told I’d hear in the near future. We haven’t had any announcement yet. Is that a viable operation? Is it going to go ahead? How does it relate to the other proposals in the area, by the private sector? Just north of that, there’s a major proposal by a consortium involving both Canadian and foreign investors. How is it related? What is the role of the ministry in that?

We’ve got to get serious here. It’s nice to trade rhetoric back and forth, but we have major problems if we remain solely dependent upon resource industries, whether it be extraction through mining or lumbering or, for that matter, just tourism. They are all resource-based and eventually, unless we change the patterns we are facing now, we’re not going to have the kinds of resources we have in northern Ontario. Unless we replace them with something, we’re going to have major problems. That’s what we’re saying over here, and I’m looking for some kind of positive response from the government.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if I can add anything further to what I have already said. Sure, it’s great to have secondary manufacturing. The Missanabies, the Savant Lakes, the Minakis; I think it is fair to say will never see secondary manufacturing. Hopefully, the Sudburys, Timmins’, Sault Ste. Manes, North Bays, Thunder Bays, Kenoras and the Drydens will. I think that’s where any secondary manufacturing is going to be. We certainly can’t stand in our places, any one of us, and say we are going to save all the Missanabies or the Hudsons or the Savant Lakes or the Armstrongs -- these types of places.

My old home town of Hudson is a typical example. I suppose the community shouldn’t even exist. It was established back in 1929 during the gold rush days. That’s when my father came to Red Lake. He moved down to Hudson and went into business for himself. On a part-time basis he set up a general store. The other part-time job was a steel helmet diver. That’s what brought him to that country, working on the Hydro dams doing underwater work. He also worked in Montreal harbour on ocean-going vessels. L:ater he went into business on his own and contracted out. They were bringing out the iron ore concentrates by tractor train and by scow, and the gold bricks by aeroplane at that time. Invariably there were losses that would occur and he would go down and salvage them.

He did that for years. He did it very well. In fact we never felt the depression back in Hudson. I remember the depression and we never felt it, because my father was doing so well during the gold rush days.

Hudson was built up as a transportation community because we were the last jumping-off place on steel to the Red Lake area. The freight would come into Hudson on the railway to be transported north to Pickle Lake and to Red Lake by tractor train, by barge and by aircraft. In fact in 1939, you will be interested to know there was more air freight moved out of Hudson going to those two mining communities than there was from the international airport in Chicago.

But the road came. They built a road into Red Lake, they built a road into Pickle Lake. That should have been the end of Hudson. Eight hundred people should have packed their bags and moved on. They had been there something like 20 or 25 years then. The transportation industry had gone, the docks were all left but all the barges were moved out. The office spaces on the waterfront were moved. The big cranes were polled down. It was a sad sight.

But the point I am trying to make is the guts and the courage of the local people were still there. Four of them banded together and said: “Hudson is not going to die. We are going to make sure of that.” The four of them pooled their resources, came down here and met with the government and said:

“Look, we are prepared to go into the sawmill business. We need some timber resources.” My father was one of those men who had pooled resources as a consortium. The government gave them a timber limit and they went back to Hudson and established a mill. The mill is still operating today and there are 350 people working there on a year-round basis and they want to expand.

It’s that kind of initiative, that kind of entrepreneurship, that we have in northern Ontario. Sure it’s using those resources. I grant it, but it’s still providing those jobs and those jobs are good for another 30 or 40 years from the resources we have in that area. Hudson should have been gone. It should have been wiped off the map right after the Second World War.

I don’t have the answers for every community in northern Ontario. We are not going to relax our efforts one bit in trying to encourage development and secondary manufacturing in that area. The development and employment project, the one the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) is chairing along with the Minister of Industry and Tourism, is directed specifically at encouraging new manufacturing and job opportunities across this province. I am confident we will see some action in northern Ontario with regard to that.

But there are limitations, we know, because of our great distances and our small populations. Some 90 per cent of the land mass is north of the French River but only 10 per cent of the people, 900,000 people. What’s the population of London, Ontario? It has got to be close to a million. The population of Kitchener and London is equivalent to the whole of northern Ontario.

The odds are stacked against us as northerners. It’s true we have the resources, but we have a couple of problems with it. One of them is the lack of population and the other is the great distances. We have to accept that and meet that challenge, knowing those problems are before us. So while I welcome the member’s input, I certainly will not let it go to gather dust in the Hansard papers; I will read it and my staff will read it, because it does gives us food for thought.

Mr. Wildman: In regard to what we have been discussing, can the minister indicate what is happening with the proposal by the chambers of commerce of northwestern Ontario? In this proposal, made to the provincial cabinet in December I believe, for the formation of a study group for the development of an industrial strategy for that area, they were looking for $112,000 for a two-year program. I understand, in the words of Mr. Jobbitt, one of their spokesman who is quoted in the article I am reading here, that:

“The north has been inundated with consultants being flown into our area from centres other than northwestern Ontario, and while we recognize the expertise of consultants must be utilized from time to time, we feel that one must live in the environment to understand its needs and potential and to properly appreciate it.”

I understand that at that time the Premier (Mr. Davis) was unable to commit himself that the government would fund such a study. The Minister of Northern Affairs indicated he would look at it and discuss it with his cabinet colleagues, in the hope that something could come early in the spring.

I understand that the chambers of commerce were concerned not only with encouraging new investment but retaining the existing businesses that are already in operation there. I wonder if the minister could indicate what is happening with that.

At one point I think he said he was going to give us some indication of what success he could point to in terms of the Manitoulin economic development committee, In relation to that, I would be interested in an update on what Dr. Lupton, of the ministry staff in Sudbury, has been able to come up with in terms of the North Shore Development Association and any proposal by the ministry to assist the communities in those areas in trying to bring about an industrial strategy to produce some kind of secondary industry and service industries for those areas.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I would be glad to report on the progress we are making with regard to input from northwestern Ontario.

If I could just go back a few steps and relate to the members the issue we are discussing. It refers to the establishment some time ago of the development councils, and I think there were eight or nine across northern Ontario. It is fair to say the ones in northwestern and northeastern Ontario were the most active, the most aggressive and the most productive right across the province in providing information and in being a watchdog, a group that would provide input to the planning process. But other areas of the province were not as efficient, as effective or as productive, so the Treasurer of the day felt very strongly that they had outlived their usefulness and he abandoned them completely.

In the period that followed the new Treasurer, who had responsibility for planning, established what we call the municipal advisory committees the MACs. We have one in the northeast and one in the northwest. He felt very strongly at that time, and I think it is fair to say that I shared his view, that if we are going to get a group involved in the strategic industrial planning for a specific region and getting some very valuable, constructive and responsible input, it should come from the elected representatives of the area rather than from I the various pressure groups, lobbyists if you will, which had a variety of interests.

[5:30]

He felt a municipal politician, who had to go back to his electorate every two years, should interface with the politicians here at Queen’s Park. I think the idea has some merit, there is no question. It still has merit. In my meetings with the municipal advisory committees there has been a rapport, a sharing of the ideas. They do not burden the government with wild-eyed plans and proposals, knowing full well they as politicians will have to share some of that responsibility. So it has some benefits in that regard.

I think it is fair to say that both municipal advisory committees are working very effectively right now in the northeast and northwest. In the northeast we have already established the location of the executive director, who will be in Sault Ste. Marie adjacent to the office of the assistant deputy minister, Herb Aiken. I think the office space has been allocated and the furniture has been purchased. The advisory committee executive is now working on the selection of an executive director. It will be in essence their executive director; he will be their man, working very closely with the Ministry of Northern Affairs because that is the interface as it was spelled out by the government.

In the northwest we have a similar situation taking place. The MAC approach has come a long way in the last three or four years. There was that parochial problem where Thunder Bay seemed to overshadow all the other little communities with regard to their input and attitudes, but that has changed. I think the whole MAC arrangement now is looking at the needs of the region, be it social or economic or transportation or whatever. They are looking at the overall region; which of course makes it much easier to deal with. So we have that in place and in step and moving ahead. They will have an office established in northwestern Ontario.

What we see on the other hand is the remnants of the old Northwest Ontario Development Council, which was headed up by that very able gentleman, the late Lackey Phillips. He had done a tremendous job but he reported principally to a mix of people, some in the municipal field, some in the chamber of commerce group. I don’t think there were any labour people or native people involved; I don’t think the unorganized communities were involved. Principally it was the chambers of commerce -- the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce -- and the municipal organizations.

Since the establishment of MAC I think it is fair to say those other groups -- the chambers of commerce, the labour unions, the native people and the unorganized communities association -- have felt outside the input process. They want to provide input, as most northerners do. They have come forward and asked, “Is there some way we can give some input, that we can give our expertise and our ideas?” They claim -- and I am not here to argue or debate it -- that municipal politicians have certain biases with regard to their job, to their outlook; and maybe they do not have the expertise that a member of the chamber of commerce or a member of a labour union would have, or a member of the native community or a member of the unorganized communities would have; that expertise or that input or that attitude would not be there unless it came through from the other direction.

They have asked us, and they have asked the Premier, if there is some way they could work with the MAC, outside of the MAC in some vehicle through which they could be formally recognized. We do not have an answer. I went to the northern Ontario municipal association and laid it right on their doorstep. I said: “We have to hear those people. There are groups out there that want an input. They have some valuable contribution to make, in a number of different fields. I feel obligated to find a way to get that input and to get that co-operation.”

I have asked them to sit down and share with me some ideas. Just recently I have written to the municipal advisory committee suggesting the same thing: that they look at a number of different ways in which we can get the input from these particular groups. Is it a subcommittee of the MAC? Is it part of the MAC organization? I don’t think we should have three or four different groups feeding input to the government. I think it is much easier, if one is doing planning and this type of work, to have it come through one specific body.

The issue is before them now. We will be having some discussions with them. I have asked MAC to get back to me by late June with some suggestions of how they feel we could implement the planning and get the support and input from these various groups.

That is well in hand and moving ahead. I don’t know what will come out of those discussions and those ideas, but I can assure you that we are anxiously trying to find a solution.

You asked about the Manitoulin Economic Development Association. You will recall we did assist in setting up an association that consisted of nine municipalities. We contributed something like $40,000 a year and the local municipalities would match this from municipal taxation. To date they have hired a manager and a secretary. They have opened an office and a brochure on the association has been developed and is now being distributed.

From the work of the association, seven new enterprises have been established in the area, creating 11 new jobs. Discussions are presently under way with four new prospects with an employment potential of eight additional jobs. A very successful trade fair was held in Little Current on May 11 of this year. It received wide acclaim. So they are in place.

This is another example of how we could help with a self-help agency. Dr. Lupton of our staff was very much involved with in working closely with this group, to get their input, their ideas, and then of course to give them that seed money to get off and running.

There are no better salesmen than the local people themselves, if they are given the support, resources and expertise they need to go to the outside world and create the attitude and atmosphere they require to improve their own small industries and, of course, to create jobs. I am particularly pleased with their success to date.

Item 2 agreed to.

Vote 701 agreed to.

On vote 702, project development and community relations program; item 1; project development and implementation:

Mr. Bolan: I’m glad to see that we have finally moved off vote 701. I am not being critical, however; this merely emphasizes the problems which exist in northern Ontario when we have to spend close to eight hours just dealing with that one particular item. As I say, I am not being critical. In fact, perhaps we should spend more hours on these estimates.

I notice that when we went through the last estimates, 11½ hours was allocated, and we are now up to 13 hours. It’s just like the budget, onwards and upwards. We’re shooting for 15 hours the next time.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Revise my budget upwards?

Mr. Bolan: I would hope that the budget will increase in the same percentage as does the number of hours required to do the estimates.

I just have one matter to raise on this item. It has to do with the programs of the government which the people of northern Ontario are to be made aware of. I’m talking about the services of the Northern Affairs officers.

The function of the Northern Affairs officers as set out in the estimates is to make residents of northern Ontario aware of the programs, services and facilities available to them from the government. There is at least one area here which causes me concern. It is one of the programs introduced by the government which I feel has been of tremendous benefit to the people of Ontario, particularly those in northern Ontario, and that is the OHRP program, the Ontario Home Renewal Plan. There is only one thing wrong with it, there is not enough money for it. If there ever was a program designed to increase and improve the housing stock, this certainly is the one.

When you look at all the spinoff effects this particular program has, first of all it improves the home, which means that the assessed value of the home goes up, which means that the taxes will go up correspondingly, and rightfully they should. It means the small businessman gets into the act, because he’s one of the contractors who will go out to replace the roof or put in a new septic tank or drill a new well. The benefits are just astounding.

My concern is just what role does the northern affairs officer play in dealing with the OHRP programs. I do know that if somebody comes to him an application is made out in his office. I’m talking about the groups in unorganized townships. The application is made in his office and he’ll make a search of the title at the registry office or hell have that done, which is all fine indeed. But specifically, what attempts does the northern affairs officer make to go out and to inform the public in unorganized townships and communities of the program?

I know in my area we had one northern affairs officer, who no longer is with us, Mr. Cazabon, an excellent officer. He did an awful lot of OHRP work. He would go right out and knock on their doors and say: “This program is available. Are you interested?” He really went out and sold the plan. However, I understand this is not the case with all of them, and I can understand that too. They have other things to do.

I’d like to know if you have any specific instructions to your northern affairs officers as to what they are to do to inform the public of the OHRP program, other than, of course, to have the pamphlets made available in the office.

In my particular area, what I did is I sent a letter to all of the citizens who live in the unorganized townships to inform them of the program and to inform them where they could get more information, either through my constituency office or the Northern Affairs office in North Bay or in Sturgeon Falls.

If you don’t have any particular instructions to your northern affairs officers, I would ask that you consider that, because the benefits of it are just fantastic.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I certainly appreciate the member’s observations on the fine job our northern affairs officers are doing, not only with the OHRP program but all the government programs they deal with.

The OHRP program, as you are well aware, is administered by the Ministry of Housing, and through the excellent cooperation we get from the ministry, having our northern affairs officers be the front line people in the field has worked out exceptionally well -- there’s just no question -- right across the north. I don’t think there’s a member in northern Ontario that hasn’t written me about the OHRP program and the excellent results he or she has received from this program and from our northern affairs officers in handling this particular program.

They’re given a blanket instruction to promote government programs. As you know, many of them have their own little columns in the newspapers, many of them have spot radio shows, some even go as far as to have television programs where they talk about Ontario government programs and let the general public know how to go about it, how they can help them in a number of different ways. They’ve also been instructed, where possible, to speak to various groups, large or small, in the development of those programs.

Also, I think it’s fair to say in the rural areas -- and I followed it in my own area, it was very, very effective -- it is word of mouth. We had a couple of programs in my community; and believe me when Ron Willis, the northern affairs officer, came in to meet with the individuals -- and they were senior citizens -- to discuss with them a new roof, an addition to their house for a bathroom -- the very basic needs, something that was really needed; and then to roll out the repayment program, which was very minimal: that went through the town like wildfire, so Ron Willis was pretty busy for a long period.

[5:45]

I guess one of the weaknesses of the program is the amount of money we’re allowed. I would like to see it increased. I think you would too. I am constantly pressing my colleague, the Minister of Housing, for his efforts in improving that overall program. It has such benefits, as you correctly pointed out, to the areas of northern Ontario that have many small, frame houses. That $1,000 or $2,000 can do a tremendous amount of improvements to them. We see it every day and I just hope it continues because we’re going to be in there promoting it and doing everything we can to improve the quality of life.

Mr. Wildman: To supplement that, I certainly add my feelings about the OHRP program to those of my colleague. I think this is one program that has the support of just about every member of the House. It’s gained a great deal of praise.

I’d be interested in finding out if you have any specific training seminars or workshops worked up for the northern affairs officers themselves with other ministries, like the Ministry of Housing in relation to OHRP or, say, the Ministry of the Environment in relation to their program on the rural, privately-owned septic tanks and wells, that kind of thing.

There have been a lot of very good things done in my area, and in others in the unorganized communities under OHRP. There have been a few administrative problems, however, and I can understand that occurring with one person basically doing a lot of different projects in different areas. I wonder if you have any ongoing training programs for northern affairs officers on those two programs. Also, I would be interested in relation to the one thing you said about the radio shows and TV shows, if you could give me some ideas of who could go on those shows.

I’ve had a couple of occasions where, just by coincidence I’m sure, I have made one or two public statements that might be a little critical of government policy where, within a few days or a week or so, the northern affairs show in Sault Ste. Marie has dealt with the very same topic and has not always agreed with me about what I’ve said. I just wonder if there is any opportunity for rebuttal to some of the things that are said on the Northern Affairs programs, though, in terms of advertising government programs I think they’re very worthwhile shows.

Those are my only two questions on this vote. Could you give me some idea of what ongoing upgrading and training you’re doing for your officers in those various programs and also if you could give me some comments about how the shows operate?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I should just relate to the member the selectivity that we go through in pithing a northern affairs officer first. I think it’s fair to say that we have a long list of people waiting to become northern affairs officers. Over the years they have built themselves up into a pretty respectable group. Sure, the salary is good. They are very broad and general in their approach. They’re dealing with human issues, doing things for people, and we select those people for their knowledge of the way government operates. They may have been former civil servants who have a background of a ministry or a number of ministries, so they come to us with some knowledge of how the system operates.

We build on that with regular training seminars, because it is important to keep up with the various changes that take place with regard to the programs that they promote and they administer. I’m told here that we have them on a very regular basis. In fact the next one is on the 30th of this month; a two-day one in the northeast. What they do is get other government ministries to send up their people to talk to our northern affairs officers. Even the Ombudsman met with the northern affairs officers to explain his role. In fact, he was so impressed he thought our northern affairs officers were mini-ombudsmen.

We just don’t relay the programs ourselves. The ministries that are responsible for those programs actually go up and meet with the northern affairs officers and exchange views with them. It’s an ongoing thing with all the ministries we deal with, Labour, Environment, Natural Resources, not so much Natural Resources because they have so many people in the field, but Housing, Intergovernmental Affairs and so on.

Over a few years those people have become very versatile and very broad in their approach, very broad in their thinking, and of course in the administration of provincial programs. We have an excellent group, something like 29, right across northern Ontario, serving the public exceptionally well; not only those 29 but the satellite people working for them. I want to take this opportunity to publicly thank those people who are working in the smaller communities on a satellite basis with no pay, no compensation. It’s just a referral system. People know the northern affairs officer is coming to a certain town or a certain community and they leave their names with the satellite officer who, in turn, passes it over to the northern affairs officer who makes that call. It’s a very effective network of service and one that cannot go un recognized because they make a tremendous contribution to their fellow man. I want to thank them publicly for it.

The member asked one question at the end. What was it? I didn’t get it?

Mr. Wildman: I asked about the television programs. If the minister would like a further explanation, I will give him one example. It’s not a major thing I’m raising here, just a matter of interest.

At the time the provincial parks camp fees were increased, I indicated I didn’t agree with that and I pointed out, when the report came out a year later, that the percentage of people visiting the camps was down. I think it was about 11 per cent last year, and in our area it was higher, about 15 to 18 per cent. Not long after I made that statement and pointed to that figure, which the Minister of Natural Resources had supplied me with, there was a program on in the Sault, a Ministry of Northern Affairs show, and they had a long discussion about whether the increase in the provincial parks fees had affected the numbers of visitors to the parks in our area. They didn’t agree with my position. I have nothing against them for not agreeing with what I said, but I am just interested to know whether I could have gone on the show and made my position clear to the interviewer as well.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I suppose our northern affairs officers are very well informed and we always like to keep the record straight, so to speak. No, I can’t answer that specific question, but I guess we have made it an unwritten rule, there is nothing written, to keep away from politicians on those shows. I don’t think you have seen the minister on those shows.

Mr. Wildman: Oh, no.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I don’t think it’s the place for politicians. We have a forum. There’s nothing better than the Ontario Legislature as a place to spout off. Of course we also have the route of news releases if we want to issue them ourselves. I’m sure the radio stations carry our news releases, as do TV shows and so on. I think we should leave to the northern affairs officers the responsibility of outlining to the public just what those programs are and how they can help everybody in general, no matter if they are NDP, Liberal or Conservative. They’ll help them all. There is no discrimination, no bias.

Item 1 agreed to.

On item 2, project development and implementation:

Mr. Bolan: Just one small point on this: I suppose it’s as good a place as any to bring this up. The minister says one of the functions of his ministry is to work in concert with municipalities and other ministries in developing plans to improve northern community conditions and to respond to those in need. I just have one question on this and it has to do with the educational channel, TV Ontario.

In northern Ontario the only way you can get this channel is if you have cable television. I think we all know the benefits of TV Ontario.

I am wondering if this ministry has any input with respect to this. I am wondering if the minister is prepared to undertake to the House that he will liaise with the other ministries which may be responsible for this. I presume Culture and Recreation would be the line ministry on this.

In any event, many of those in isolated communities can get the regular CBC channel or whichever one is in the area, but TV Ontario has to be one of the better things which have come out for a long time.

There are some good government programs. There’s OHRP there’s TV Ontario and there are others as well. We don’t mind pointing these nut when the time comes to point them out. But in terms of educating many of the people -- and I mean adults here; the children get their education in school. I’m talking about the adult residents of northern Ontario in some of our isolated communities who could certainly stand the benefits of this very excellent program.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well Mr. Chairman, the honourable member has hit on a very sensitive issue for me personally. It’s one that I have been --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It’s one that’s shared.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’m talking about the overall lack of improved television across northern Ontario, not ETV. But no, as was spelled out in the throne speech, you’ll recall that the Ministry of Northern Affairs was given certain responsibilities. We are supposed to accelerate better television coverage across northern Ontario. Our goal is to have at least three off-air channels, these being CBC, CTV and ETV. I think that’s our minimum goal. Now cable will follow that.

Mr. Wildman: And French.

Hon. Mr. Bender: And French, oh yes, there’s no question about that. French is moving into CBC in many areas right now. So we have that as a goal, in fact I am getting a little annoyed and frustrated with the lack of a decision by the CRTC.

Mr. Wildman: It had to do with an election.

Hon. Mr. Bender: That further infuriates me, really. The member for Rainy River -- and he was a member on June 4 -- stood up and said, “The CRTC had made their decision, but we can’t tell you today, we’re going to tell you two weeks from now,” which would be three or four days before the election. It never did happen. We still don’t know who the selected carrier is.

I can tell you we’re going to crank up our efforts to get a decision and to get on with the job, because there are new developments occurring in northern Ontario. There are developments with the satellite dishes. They are coming on rapidly. In the town of Dryden just about two weeks ago, after about three months experimenting, the local cable operator tied into the satellite and brought in Atlanta, Georgia, clear as a bell. The colour was exceptional, the voice was perfect and there they were, the people were watching baseball games coming in live from Atlanta, Georgia, through the satellite.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That’s educational?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes.

Mr. Bolan: How about ETV?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If we can get ETV and CTV through that route I think that’s the way we should go, because the costs have just been reduced tremendously by this satellite if they can be worked in.

Mr. Wildman: Cable’s just not viable for most of the small communities.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is now with the dish antenna in place. In fact the fellow told me that he figured out it would cost him about 10 cents per customer if he was allowed to use the satellite dishes. Now he’s totally illegal, and he recognizes that; that’s why he brought it in during election time, so they wouldn’t shut it down. But nevertheless it’s in place, it’s working and we’re going to accelerate our efforts as a ministry to get on with the job, because northern Ontario needs it and deserves it.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall item 2 carry? Does nobody wish to speak further on the item?

On motion by Hon. Mr. Bernier, the committee of supply reported a certain resolution.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.