SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS

---

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS

On vote 702, northern economic development program; item 2, transportation development:

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, in opening this discussion of the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs we are asking for the approval of the Legislature for $1.3 million for the construction of an all-weather road into the Detour Lake mine property. This is additional funding on top of the $6.7 million that was approved last year.

The road in question is 154.8 kilometres in length. It is north of Cochrane, and is about 30 miles inside the Ontario-Quebec border.

The Detour Lake mine, as many members are aware, is going to be one of the largest gold mines in Canada. It will employ in excess of 500 people, and the production is to be about 2,000 tons per day at commencement.

We are told the ore body is of some significant size, and as gold prices increase the production could increase to as much as 8,000 tons per day. So the investment is a wise one. It is one that will add significant economic benefits to that part of northeastern Ontario.

The construction that went on this past year was carried on with expertise and finesse. In fact, it went so well, because of good weather conditions, that the construction schedule was accelerated. This is the reason we are coming back to the Legislature for approval for a further $1.3 million in the construction of that all-weather road.

I would like the support of the members on all sides of the House to finish it.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a few observations in response to the minister's comments. The first one should go without saying. He was not here for my response to the throne speech, at which time I indicated that I was relatively new to this role but that I was looking forward to it because I have a very strong feeling for the needs and concerns of the people in northern Ontario.

On one of my many visits to northern Ontario in the course of this past year I was reminded rather succinctly on a handful of occasions that northern Ontario is different from southern Ontario and within itself; that is, the northwestern part of the province has needs and concerns very different from those of the north-central part of the province, and both of them have needs and concerns different from those of the northeastern part of the province.

As I listened to those observations and as I considered my role as critic for Northern Affairs, I determined that one of the best things I could do was to read a little bit about the new ministry -- and it is new -- and, of course, about the new minister and some of the rationale for both of them being there.

I suppose if I had to summarize my impressions I would have to say something like what was said in the words of that old song -- I am sure the pages will not recall this, but the oldtimers in the gallery and in the House will -- "I know a little bit about a lot of things, but I don't know enough about you."

That perhaps can be said for myself about the north, and perhaps it can be said by the government about the north, because it is very evident as one reads the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs over these last five or six years that many of the same issues are raised time and time again. But we do not see any particular solution coming to those concerns that have been raised.

When one does not see conclusions or blueprints or what have you for these concerns, one has to think out loud that possibly the government does not really have a handle on the affairs of the north. I do not say that in a totally critical sense, although by the very nature of it being said it has to be critical, but not totally critical, because if any one of us in this House or in this chamber suggested to himself or to this House that he knew all the answers to the problems of Ontario, and particularly of northern Ontario, he would really be stretching his credibility.

But when I take a further look at this specific issue of the road to Detour Lake and this whole mining development, I have to submit that we have evidence of a variety of shortcomings on the government's part. I do not want to drag this out because, in fairness, when one looks at this amount of money as it relates to the overall budget concerns of this province of ours, it is really a relatively small amount of money. There is no question about that.

On the other hand, I do not want to let it just pass by because, whether the amount be large or small, the issue of the environmental assessment process as it applies to this project has to be a concern to all of us. If there was any doubt in anyone's mind, I am sure even the former Speaker, the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), who knows so much about the north, would have been surprised to see some of the comments that came in this report which we received very recently, The Road to Detour Lake -- An Example of the Environmental Assessment Process in Ontario, from the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment.

There are some revelations in that presentation which I believe reflect poorly on the government and how it has accommodated this particular need through ignoring its own laws as they apply to the environmental assessment process. I cannot rationalize within my own thought process how it can do this.

8:10 p.m.

I have to admit to being concerned about what I say at this point, because all of us walk a very fine line when we express concerns for the environment and yet sing out, loud and clear, on the need for jobs and employment opportunities in every part of this province. If one were to pursue concern for the environment to the point where one would allow no development, the prospect would be overwhelming. I submit that none of us would be able to live with a process that precluded any opportunity for jobs.

However, we cannot watch development take place in this province without concern for the environment. Nor can we ignore the people in this province who are counting on the environment for their way of life, namely, the native people who rely on the tourism industry for their livelihood and who would be much affected by any deterioration of the environment.

We must make a fine distinction when we look at this or any similar project wherein one has concern for the environment on the one hand and concern for jobs on the other hand.

I have read through this report, but I am not as skilled in speed reading as I know you to be from other committee experience I have had with you, Mr. Chairman. However, as I dug my way through this report, I formed a few questions which I think may be legitimately raised in these supplementary estimates.

I must ask, first, considering the moneys the province is spending in this area, whether the ministry can present to us any guarantee that this joint venture, which is close to the Quebec border, will as it progresses obtain its power requirements through or from Ontario Hydro rather than from Hydro-Québec.

My second question is, what are the spinoff benefits for employment in Ontario? Does the ministry have a handle on this? After all, the government pushed this project through. We only have to look back to June 24, 1981, to its abandonment of the environmental assessment process because of the urgency of the project. If we accept that as a legitimate excuse for abandoning the process, can the minister indicate how many potential jobs we are looking at in this project?

My final question goes back to the environmental process and the extent of this development. The public expressed grave concern about being ignored in the development of the Detour Lake proposal. Although they bought the argument that there was urgency, that if the government did not move the project would not go forward, I wonder whether the government has made any attempt to reconcile those concerns or to go back to those people after the fact and say: "All right, we had to ignore the process, but we still are concerned about you and where you are in this part of our northern territory and this part of northern Ontario. We are still concerned about you and what you are concerned about, and we still want to talk to you."

Can the minister give us any assurance that, in spite of steamrolling over this environmental assessment requirement, the government has in any way, shape or form gone back to the concerned public to try to accommodate their concerns?

I may have one or two other questions as the minister replies and as the member for Lake Nipigon gets into this limited debate, but I will leave those questions at this point.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. Does the minister want to respond or to await the further questions from the honourable member?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, if I may respond, it may shorten the debate considerably, because I know there may be some repetition in some of the questions the member for Lake Nipigon will ask.

Mr. Stokes: If you answer well, you may eliminate some of my questions.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That's what I hope to do.

I want to begin by officially welcoming the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) as my official critic. I was a little taken aback when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) went to Thunder Bay and made that announcement. As we all know, the official opposition has only one member in northern Ontario. I had hoped he would continue to be my critic. His criticism and knowledge of northern Ontario were very valuable, very worthwhile and welcome on this side of the House, because he has a real depth of knowledge of what the north is all about.

During the course of the next few minutes and during the course of the next year I know that my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon and I, since I hail from the riding of Kenora, will spend some considerable time informing and possibly educating the member for London North in what the north is really all about. I welcome the challenge; I know you do. I appreciate your sincerity and your desire to become better informed, to have a much broader knowledge of what this province is all about and certainly what northern Ontario contributes to the economic wellbeing of this province.

I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that in the course of the next year we will do just that, and I hope that what the member gains from the debates and the examination of not only these supplementary estimates but also the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs he will take back to his caucus to impress upon them the urgency, the need and the concern that we as legislators should have and must have for the future of northern Ontario.

You have already touched on some of these items. Certainly the environment is one item that this side of the House is very concerned about. As we go into the development of northern Ontario and the development of our resources, we are not unmindful of the need to have complete recognition of the effect that resource development has on our resources, that there is an economic benefit that will flow from the development of those resources and the jobs that are created.

You asked how many jobs would be created with the development of this massive gold mining undertaking. When it goes into production about a year from now, in 1983, there will be 500 jobs in place; and if it goes to the full expansion of 8,000 tons a day that we expect, we can see 2,000 jobs being created in that area.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) himself, along with the former Provincial Secretary for Resources Development and I, flew to Detour Lake to look at the terrain, the sensitivity of that area and the need for that development.

Mr. Nixon: How did the Challenger operate? Did you land the jet up there?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, we didn't use a jet. We used the helicopter of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Henderson) and landed right on site.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The honourable minister will respond now to the points raised by the member for London North.

8:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It was a very interesting trip. The Premier was directly involved, and he has shown a very personal interest in this development since day one.

The member for London North made some reference to the setting aside of the environmental examination in that area, and I want to make it very clear that this was not the case. This, categorically, is not the case. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications, along with the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Northern Affairs and the Ministry of the Environment were involved, were in tune, in step every inch of the way in the development and planning of this access road into Detour Lake. In fact, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has an environmental study document in excess of 12 inches thick on the alignment for that road.

I point out to the member that there is no population affected; there is no native reservation affected. In fact, the natives in that area are anxious for the road to be developed so they can reap the benefit of some permanent employment possibilities; so they too were involved.

We were very actively involved in the alignment process with the tourist operators in the area. The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) has just brought to my attention that on two or three occasions in our discussions with the tourist operators there was a change of alignment so that the effects would not be as severe as originally planned. We were directly involved with the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters' Association, because it wanted an input into the actual alignment of that particular road.

So I say there was concern for the environment in the development of this access, which will bring some needed employment into the northeastern part of this province.

I point out, in answer to the member for London North, that a hydro line is currently being constructed by the mine. It is being constructed from a point north of Fraserdale and it will use Ontario Hydro power. That was one of the stipulations we made in our discussions with the company.

Mr. Nixon: Does the Brunelle Highway go near there?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Not yet, no. We might have to name this the Brunelle Highway when it is completed, if the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) will allow us.

I also point out that as a result of our negotiations with the company they will develop 35 kilometres of the road at a cost to them of $6.4 million. When the road is completed, our expenditure will be about $35.9 million. It is a major undertaking, but I am very confident and sure the benefits that flow from this development will be ones that will be long --

Mr. Nixon: Was that $35 million?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, $35.9 million total.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with the Minister of Northern Affairs in welcoming the member for London North to northern affairs. I have had some very brief discussions with the member about his willingness to become much better informed about what northern Ontario is all about and the tremendous contribution we from the north -- that is, north of the French River -- as the drawers of water and the hewers of wood, make to the overall contribution of southern Ontario, the Golden Horseshoe, the megalopoli that are down here. Without the resources that flow from the north in such abundance, you would not enjoy the lifestyle you enjoy in southern Ontario at present.

Welcome to the northern club. I am sure it will be quite a revelation to the member and many of his colleagues if we can persuade those two northerners over there, the Minister of Northern Affairs and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), to lay on a trip for all members of the Legislature so they can get up there and see at first hand what northern Ontario is all about.

Did I hear the minister correctly when he said the entire $1.3 million that he is requesting of the assembly here tonight is dedicated exclusively to the Detour Lake project? Does he mean he is not going to do anything in addition to what he has already announced for Highway 17, particularly Pays Plat Hill and Cavers Hill, Highway 17 east of Nipigon, passing lanes and widening of shoulders, paving of shoulders? Is he not going to do any of those things with this additional money?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Tomorrow we will.

Mr. Stokes: I would have even talked about the Armstrong road and Highway 584 from Geraldton up to Nakina had you broadened your horizons just a little bit.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Who is running all those roads anyway?

Mr. Ruston: We are having trouble getting roads fixed too, Jack, in southern Ontario. You're not the only one.

Mr. Stokes: All right. I will confine my remarks specifically to this item and the specific project for which this amount of money is dedicated.

In view of the assertion by the minister that when the project is completed, about $36 million of taxpayers' money will have gone into the project for road construction, the first question I want to ask is whether that includes the development of hydro lines as well.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Stokes: It is strictly for the roads. That is even more than the road to Minaki, give or take a few million.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Is there something wrong with that? Are you against roads?

Mr. Stokes: The first and the most obvious question is, what kind of representations did the three companies involved -- I think they are Dome Mines, Campbell Red Lake Mines and Amoco Canada Petroleum -- make to your government and specifically to your ministry to convince you that the only way this project was going to proceed was if we dedicated $36 million of taxpayers' money to get this show under way?

As the minister has said on numerous occasions, literally at every opportunity made available to him, this will be likely the largest gold mine operation ever any place in Canada, ultimately hoping to produce 8,000 tons a day. If that is even reasonably high grade -- and given the price of gold and the way it has plummeted over the past two or three years, obviously it is not nearly as attractive as it might have been two or three years ago -- I am wondering what kind of representations these three relatively large mining companies made to the Minister of Northern Affairs and his colleagues to convince them we should dedicate $36 million of taxpayers' money to get this project under way.

We have done it in the pulp and paper industry, we have done it with Chrysler with regard to the guarantee at least and we have been involved in the Massey-Ferguson deal. In a number of ways we have come to the aid of a lot of large companies. I might say that there is some justification for coming to the aid, at least on a short-term or interim basis, of large companies for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the state of the world economy.

I am wondering, when they were coming into a brand-new venture like this and they were so very anxious to get this project under way, why you could not even wait for the normal processes of the kind of adequate consultation that obviously must take place if you are going to take care of all the needs, all the aspirations and all the concerns of people who for very legitimate reasons have some concern about the nature of economic development.

I want to carry on a little bit further with something that was developed by the member for London North when he referred to the environmental assessment process with regard to this project. You will recall that during your estimates last fall, I raised specifically with you the question of this environmental assessment process in Ontario where the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment dedicated a substantial amount of money for just such an assessment on this project. I asked you at that time because there was funding in the original estimates of this ministry last fall dedicated to this project.

8:30 p.m.

I said: "What are you going to say? How are you going to react to this report when it becomes available?" and it was just released within the last week. I said, "What are you going to say if they are critical of the process and the way in which you approached this project?" You said, "If whatever they say, whatever they recommend or whatever conclusions they may come to are at variance with what we have already done we will simply have to tell them they were wrong."

I do not claim to be prescient or anything, but I just want to quote one paragraph from the conclusions contained in this very classy document. The document was researched, developed and printed as part of the $6 million plus of taxpayers' money that had been dedicated to this whole process of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment, presided over for the first year by Chief Justice Hartt and for the last two to three years by our friend and fellow northerner, Mr. Fahlgren.

He is always six months behind everything that is going on with regard to your ministry or that of your colleague behind you with his hand up to his brow. This is true with regard to strategic land-use planning or district land-use planning -- all of the things you two rascals over there are doing. Everything that he does is just about six months too late.

But I want to quote from something that was made available. This was in the conclusion arrived at by this study, The Road to Detour Lake, An Example of the Environmental Assessment Process in Ontario, commissioned by the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment:

"The circumstances and events of the Detour Lake case highlight some of the ways things can go wrong in the interaction between economic development and environmental management interests. What happened here can serve to isolate some of the factors in this interaction and stages in the process by which decisions about future benefits to the public are made.

"The ambiguous status of the road project, the fragmentation of planning efforts for the whole development, the roles adopted by various players and, of course, the inconsistencies in timing at certain stages -- all of these factors contributed to the confusing picture that evolved of a process in which government was either unwilling or unable to follow its own rules.

"This picture does not much affect the general consensus that the project is probably a good thing, that the government's rationale is acceptable, that the alignment is probably the best one, considering all factors. But it does have implications for future developments in Ontario's north and the way the environmental assessment process functions has further implications for development and decision making in the province as a whole."

The amount of money you have dedicated to this whole project is roughly $36 million for the road alone and I am sure there will be other things that these fairly major mining and exploration companies will ask you to assist them on. Obviously, through Ontario Hydro, the users of hydro are going to be contributing a fair amount of money. It is going to take a fair bit of time just to amortize the cost of that road at reasonable industrial rates for power, even in Ontario.

But when we get the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment taking the time and the effort and using precious resources to produce a document like this, which was released in late March 1982, only to find out that everything they address themselves to in this report has already been decided months and months before the release of the document, it just shows you how irrelevant most of the things are that the commission has done in the past and is doing at the present time.

I see three northerners there. I am happy to see them taking such an interest.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Are you against the mine or not? Are you against the road?

Mr. Stokes: No, I think it's a great thing, but there is a right way to do things and then there is your way.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Make up your mind.

Mr. Stokes: Why can't you do it properly?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We did.

Mr. Stokes: You didn't do it properly.

Mr. Wildman: Not according to your own commission.

Mr. Stokes: You ask Ed Fahlgren if he thinks you did it properly. He knows a lot more about mining than you, I or anyone else in this House.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman: I think the honourable member is leading the House astray, really. To say that we disregard our own rules is not totally correct. He is misleading the House.

Mr. Stokes: I didn't relinquish the floor, Mr. Chairman.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Robinson): The minister rose on a point of privilege.

Mr. Stokes: That was neither a point of order nor a point of privilege. He may have a point of view, which he can express at the proper time.

The Acting Chairman: Yes. I was simply trying to determine whether he had a legitimate point of either privilege or order that should have been addressed.

Mr. Stokes: The only point he was making was that I was leading you astray, and that I would never do.

The Acting Chairman: It seems that he did not, and I would recognize you again and ask you to continue your remarks.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been an advocate of the orderly development of resources in northern Ontario without impairing the quality of life. I have always maintained that, and for whatever length of time I have the opportunity to articulate that point of view I will continue to do so. All I am saying is that there are good ways to do things and there are bad ways to do things. I do not think this was a good way. The way in which you are trying to create jobs in Minaki is not a good way; it is your way, but I do not necessarily have to agree with the process. I might agree with your overall aims and objectives --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Your former leader didn't agree with Minaki Lodge, either. He is not here any more.

Mr. Stokes: That's right. He left of his own volition. You made him sick and he left. I am going to stay and fight.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: When he went to Minaki that was the end of Stephen Lewis.

Mr. Stokes: I can recall very vividly, it was on October 18, 1967, the day after I was first elected to the Legislative Assembly, somebody asked the member for Kenora what he thought of the people of Lake Nipigon -- at that time it was the riding of Thunder Bay.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What did he say?

Mr. Stokes: He said: "What happened that a New Democrat got elected in the riding of Thunder Bay? Where did you people go wrong?" He said: "Well, obviously they made a mistake. They will live to regret it. It's just a temporary aberration, and that will be corrected the next time around."

Mr. Ruston: Now Jack's hair is grey.

Mr. Stokes: Stephen Lewis may be gone, but I am still here and don't you forget it.

8:40 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: What percentage did you get last time, Jack?

Mr. Stokes: I didn't make quite 70 per cent. I don't want anybody to misunderstand me. I am for the orderly development of our resources in northern Ontario whether they be mineral, whether they be forestry based, whether it be on all the opportunities the minister and I know so well are there, if we could just motivate private entrepreneurs, even big capital. But any time anybody comes to the north they say, "We will exploit the north providing we can get taxpayers' dollars."

I am the true enterpriser. You are Socialists. Any time anybody comes to talk to the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) or the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), in concert with the provincial Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), you people pretty near rupture yourselves trying to throw money at these big corporations. It is called socialism for the rich, and free enterprise for the poor. So any time you accuse me of being a Socialist, just clean out your own house.

Here is $1.3 million dedicated to assisting these poor, impoverished companies like Dome, like Campbell Red Lake, like Amoco in the United States. They are impoverished and just hanging on by a thread, hanging on by the skin of their teeth, and the only way we can get the kind of development we think we so richly deserve in the north is by giving handouts to -- I won't call them corporate welfare bums -- but they need a little push to get them to exploit the tremendous storehouse of wealth we have in northern Ontario.

I suppose, for whatever length of time those fellows are over there, if that is what it takes, that is the way it is going to be. They have the numbers. They have the realities of March 19. Whether I vote for this $1.3 million or not, they are going to get it. I happen to think there is a better way of using taxpayers' dollars for the development of the natural wealth we have in northern Ontario without throwing it out to these multinational and large corporations. I think they would have gone there in spite of it.

I want to make one final comment. Why were you so anxious to go forward with this whole process in advance of this study? Obviously, it was because those three companies I mentioned earlier were so anxious to get going in there that they said: "We can't wait to wade through the bureaucracy and the red tape. We want to go now." So you hurried up the process, you withdrew it from the Environmental Protection Act, from the whole environmental assessment process and said, "Let's get on with it." They could not get in there fast enough.

I think you could have attracted them in there without spending $36 million of taxpayers' money. They would have been in there anyway, because wherever there is a dollar to be made those entrepreneurs will be there. I do not think the expenditure of the $36 million, or the $1.3 million you are asking for tonight, would have made any difference. If there is a dollar to be made they would have been there, and I think you could have used the $36 million to a much greater purpose.

If my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) was here, he would say you could have built a food terminal in Timmins. I would not say that. But there are any number of ways in which this kind of money could have been much better spent. However, you are going to do it, it is going to provide some jobs in the north, and that is the name of the game in this day and age, so we will be supporting this amount of money.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to both opposition critics. First, I want to compliment the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) both for his remarks and for his enthusiasm in his new role of critic for the Ministry of Northern Affairs. I remind him of what his former leader said -- I think he went up to northern Ontario once; at least as far as North Bay, when he got lost in a snowstorm or something. He was going to do away with the Ministry of Northern Affairs, if you will recall, because it was a "nothing" ministry, it was Santa Claus, as the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) said, and it was not responding to the needs of northern Ontario.

There is an enlightened attitude on that side now because the new leader of the Liberal Party went up to Thunder Bay and said: "The Ministry of Northern Affairs will stay, and if we" -- God help Ontario -- "ever get into power, we will build on that ministry. We will make it do more than it is doing today. They have built a base." That is quite a change. So I welcome you, sir, and I look forward to working closely with you in the interests of northern Ontario.

I also want to acknowledge the member for Lake Nipigon who, like myself, knows a little bit about northern Ontario and our efforts to get jobs and development up there. He commented on the expenditure that we are making -- something like $35 million or $36 million. But he forgot, or was perhaps not aware, that the company which is involved will spend $6.4 million on their share of the top half of that particular road and will spend in excess of $200 million developing the mine.

The member does not take into account that after three years of operation that mine will deliver to the coffers of this province $20 million a year in excess of that amount, and the road will be paid for in four or five years. If that is not a good investment in northern Ontario, tell me so. Go up to Cochrane and tell the people that the road to Detour Lake is not a good investment.

Two weeks before the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the former member for Cochrane North and I went into Detour Lake, the Quebec Minister for Natural Resources was there, because it is 30 miles from the Quebec border. He knew very well that this road should have gone to Quebec. I will say to you on that side of the House that if we had sat here and done nothing for Detour Lake, if we had let that road go to the Quebec government, there would have been howls from that side of the House.

Mr. Stokes: The resources belong to Ontario. That is a red herring and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is right, but the road would have gone to Quebec and the economic benefits would have gone to Quebec. The economic benefits will now flow to the coffers of this province.

I make no apologies for the expenditures that the taxpayers of this province are making for the development of that road, which I hope will open up further mining development. If the member for Lake Nipigon looks at the geology and formation of Rouyn and Noranda, Quebec, and then at Detour Lake, taking in that band right up to Favourable Lake, he will see that there is now greater potential for additional mines in that particular area in Ontario. There is no question but that the road is an investment in our future; and it is starting out on the right foot, with 500 jobs and possibly 2,000 down the road.

I stand here with pride and accept the support of the critics from the Liberal Party and from the third party in this expenditure. It gives me great satisfaction to know we are on the right track. We have been very sensitive to the environment, as I pointed out earlier. I said that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications had done its work. They have documents, more than a foot high, on the environmental impact of that road. They have had discussions with the tourist industry and with the local people. Nobody has actually been affected.

8:50 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Tell that to Ed Fahlgren.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I will tell him.

I am pleased we have the support. In my opinion, it is not a handout to the major corporations. When one thinks of what they are spending and what the taxpayers are spending and the return we will get to the consolidated revenue fund, I am very grateful for the members' support.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back to one of the questions that I put to the minister which he inadvertently went over and did not respond to. That was the question about Ontario Hydro and if hydro would be acquired for this project from Ontario as opposed to Quebec.

In the initial response to me he acknowledged my new role and I am very grateful for that. There was also reference made -- I think indirectly by him and directly by the member for Lake Nipigon -- that I and all members of this chamber would be welcome to go to the north. Our former leader, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), interjected that it was time for another northern tour. I gather this used to be the procedure or happening on occasion, that members would go north. I think that is something we should encourage and pursue.

There was also an implication that the north was something I knew very little about and had not visited, let alone inquired into. That is certainly not the case. I point out to the minister that within the last year I have had the pleasure and opportunity to visit seven different communities on one occasion and an additional five communities on two occasions, a total of 12 communities in the north, and that is north of the French River.

I also had the pleasure of visiting my daughter, who worked as a camp counsellor at a little spot called Oskiniko, which is just south of Moosonee. That is a place one has to get to by that wonderful Northlander. I did take the opportunity to go up and visit that camp and see the activities of the volunteer people who were spending their entire summer there working with the Oblate Fathers trying to provide a program for the native young people in the Moosonee area. Just by chance this past weekend two of those campers, those native Indian folk from the Moosonee area, were in London at a conference and dropped around to our house to visit my daughter Beth, who worked there as a volunteer for a matter of 10 weeks.

In passing, I had to observe the concern of the native folk in this report that the environmental process was overlooked. They were not happy with it. I think the minister indicated they were satisfied with it. I simply asked for clarification. On pages 112 and 113 of this report, under the heading of exemptions, there is a fairly clear statement, and I am quoting in part from the release made by the Grand Council Treaty 9, "The province of Ontario is in breach of its own legislation by virtue of the announcement of the granting of contracts for building of the access road prior to the 30-day public notice based on the assumption that there was no obvious opposition to this project."

That and other comments in these two pages and comments spread throughout the report would indicate to me that they were not happy. Let me finish by again going back to these two questions, (a) on hydro from Ontario, and (b) on the attitude of native folk in northern Ontario on this project.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, again I appreciate the member for London North's sincerity and his concern for the northern Ontario environment and his commitment in the next few years to visit northern Ontario on a more regular basis.

Coming from London and going up to northern Ontario to visit, he will be labelled as an in-and-outer. We have a saying in northern Ontario that these people who come from southern Ontario come in for a day and go out the next day, and we call them in-and-outers, because they won't stay with us for a week or two or six months, and they don't know the attitudes.

I hope the member for London North will not only come to northern Ontario for one or two days, but come up and stay with us and learn our attitudes and our concerns and our desires. It does take a little time and, while the member for Lake Nipigon and I will try to enlighten him as much as we can, a real personal visit for a period of time longer than a day or two would be much more appreciated and very beneficial.

Getting back to the two questions, the Ontario Hydro line will be developed by the mine. The construction of the hydro line is being paid for by the company. It is no burden on Ontario Hydro. The line is coming from the province and will make a connection north of Fraserdale. That is in place and there is no burden on Ontario taxpayers.

The member also made reference to Treaty 9. I would point out that our discussions were with the individuals and with the bands in the area, and not with the overall Treaty 9, so the native people's acceptance and desire to obtain permanent employment because of the development of the mine is a very sincere one and a very real one. I have to admit there are not really that many.

Vote 702 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: This completes consideration of the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

On vote 2502, land management program; item 1, conservation authorities and water management:

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Chairman, this represents transfer payments to conservation authorities. It involves additional funding allocations for the Neebing-Mclntyre flood control project with the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority. It involves the Upper Thames land acquisition program with the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. It involves some expenditures on the Port Hope project with the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority and, finally, the famous W. Darcy McKeough project involving the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority.

There were additional financial commitments required for the current fiscal year, some of which were offset by restraints in other activities and this is the balance required to transfer payments to these authorities to cover these projects for the current year.

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Chairman, I note that the amount of the supplementary expenditures for 1981-82 is $1,878,200. The decrease in the budgetary expenditures for the conservation authorities and water management program is from $47,503,700 in 1980-81 to $41,018,000 in 1981-82. This is a decrease of some 14 per cent, or $6,485,000. Even with this extra $1,878,200, the budget will have been reduced by more than $4.5 million. I wonder if the minister would comment on the reason for that reduction.

The extra money is also to be used to finance water and land management programs, recreational land management programs and other projects under the scope of the individual authorities.

9 p.m.

Some major concerns have been expressed over the role and mandate of the conservation authorities. The minister will be aware that in April 1979 a draft report was prepared by the conservation authorities branch of the ministry. I wonder whether the minister might bring us up to date on what has happened to that draft report of April 1979 -- it was the report of the working group -- and tell us whether anything further has been done and whether he has incorporated any official mandate of the conservation authorities.

He will also be aware that at that time there was considerable input from various sources and particularly from the Municipal Liaison Committee, which represents the various municipal associations of Ontario. He will recall that there were some very excellent responses from the Association of Counties and Regions of Ontario, the rural Ontario municipalities and Metropolitan Toronto in regard to that report. They had some very real concerns, and I wonder if the minister might address two or three of these areas.

One of the concerns was the membership on the conservation authorities. All three reports addressed the need for municipal representatives on the conservation authorities to assume a larger and more active role in the functioning of the authorities and the need for increased accountability to the member municipalities and the public.

They also were concerned about funding, and I wonder if the minister would comment on their participation in this.

Also, with regard to responsibilities, the three reports recommended that the prime functions of conservation authorities should be watershed management and flood and erosion control, and that no further responsibility should be designated to conservation authorities. This recommendation was supported by the Municipal Liaison Committee. I think it is important that the minister address himself to this and to what the mandate of the authorities might be, especially the follow-up to that draft report.

I think it is also important that the minister consider the role of the conservation authorities in view of the realignment of the ministries within the government in which we now have the long-overdue separation, recommended by the Liberal task force on tourism, of industry and tourism. This has now been combined as the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. This is going to be a new field, and I realize that the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) and the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey) are still in the process of trying to determine exactly what responsibilities they will take.

In view of the fact that greater emphasis is being placed on our tourism industry and the needs of recreation in the province, how is this going to affect the work of conservation authorities, which seem to be getting quite involved in the recreational field? The last thing we need is duplication, but I do feel that the minister might bring us up to date on that working group and the mandate and role of the conservation authorities of Ontario.

The Deputy Chairman: Would the minister like to respond to that now, inasmuch as it might resolve most of the other questions that may be coming forward?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Chairman, the funding level has fluctuated. As the member has accurately pointed out, it relates both to projects coming on stream and to projects going off stream, their planning timetables, and it relates to our attempts to straighten priorities around as we think they should be with respect to conservation authority activities.

It is true that we have been looking at the role of conservation authorities and their mandates since well before 1979 and that we have been discussing this matter with various sources, including the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee.

We have been attempting to work with the conservation authorities to indicate our priority, once again being reinforced with them with respect to flood plain management, flood control projects and land acquisition projects in the flood plain.

We also recognize that they have developed a role with respect to the provision of recreational opportunities in their flood plain areas. This is normally done in consultation with the municipalities. Certainly in my own conservation authority area, there has always been a close working relationship with the municipal councils involved and the conservation authority. It can always be improved.

I am aware of some stresses in certain conservation authority areas. I am aware of certain stresses with respect to some authorities and their relationship to the municipalities. I think it is something we have been trying to address ourselves to.

The Deputy Chairman: Does any other honourable member wish to participate? The member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: I will yield to the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, when I saw the description of the supplementary estimates, it struck me that the minister was being his usual taciturn self in not revealing to us exactly what he had in mind in terms of these supplementary estimates.

One thing that has always bothered me about the conservation authorities is that the minister has been able to play off one conservation authority against another. I do not refer to this minister, because he is just learning how to do it; but his predecessors have done it. As a result, there is no sense out there that there is a priority for this kind of conservation versus another kind of conservation.

I think of the area I represent, for example, where there is serious flooding every time there is a major runoff from north of the major watershed. Ten years ago, the Ministry of Natural Resources commissioned a study called the Svanks report on major flooding of what is known as the Vermilion-Onaping watershed. There was very serious flooding, and a very good report was done by this engineer named Svanks.

When the report came out, it made certain recommendations, every one of which has been ignored since that time. The Ministry of Natural Resources says: "You know it is not up to us. It is up to the conservation authority to make that decision." But what the minister forgets to reveal is that any conservation authority has to get its money from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

It really is playing a game to say that the conservation authorities establish their own priorities and decide how they are going to spend their money. In fact, the conservation authorities have very little discretionary income that allows them to make those kinds of decisions. The problem is only corrected if the Ministry of Natural Resources says: "There is a particular problem in this area. We think it is important enough to award funds for it; we therefore give you those grants, and you can do a decent job on it."

What is so silly about the present policy is that when the flooding occurs, the Ontario government has to ante up the money anyway. The only trouble is that it does not look after all the misery that goes along with serious flooding in any given community. The ministry has this unstated and unwritten policy that it will wait until the misery occurs and then placate the people in the local area by giving the grants when absolutely necessary, but it will not take the preventive measures necessary to avoid the misery in the first place.

I can see it coming again this year. There is going to be a major runoff north of the watershed, and that is going to cause a major problem in June, particularly if there is a heavy rainfall that lasts for a day or so. I can see that coming now, and the minister will say: "Well, it wasn't our fault. We just grant the money to the conservation authorities and then they establish their own priorities."

The minister can go on saying that year after year, I suppose, and the misery will go on year after year, whenever there is a major flood. It is not as though there was no solution to the problem. The solution is there, it has been recommended by a task force the ministry appointed itself, and yet they ignore the very recommendations that would solve the problem and prevent the need to appoint yet another study or another task force in the years to come. This minister has fallen into that same old pattern, saying: "Don't talk to us. Let the conservation authority decide what their priorities are."

9:10 p.m.

I hope that when the minister responds he will tell me just what his views are on the priorities of the various conservation authorities. I hope he will indicate to me whether he thinks the recommendations of the Svanks report -- which I suspect he is aware of; if he is not, he should be -- were realistic. They were not at all unreasonable, they were not expensive, and yet the ministry has totally ignored those recommendations for about 10 years now.

I urge the minister, if he is not aware of the recommendations in that report, to consult his officials. If that would not be breaking new ground for him, I would suggest that he consult those people in his ministry who have some expertise and take a long look at that problem.

I do not say that to offend the minister, but I do recall that during the estimates last fall, for the first time in history of Ontario, the estimates debates were heard with only the minister in the room representing the government; there were no civil servants. On occasion his deputy minister was there, but that was it. The infallible Pope had all the help he needed. I have never seen that happen before in Ontario, and it seems to me it was a strange precedent for a new minister to be setting.

Anyway, I will get back to the conservation authorities, because I notice the chairman is looking a little agitated. I urge the minister to give serious consideration to the problems of the conservation authorities and to think about it as a preventive measure which he should be giving more consideration to.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Chairman, for about the last year we have been trying to indicate a sense of priority in terms of the types of programs we would like to support through our funding priority rating system. They include land acquisition in flood plain areas; flood control measures, including diking and bank stabilization; and water management programs, including flood plain mapping.

On a number of occasions we have indicated to the conservation authorities that, in terms of approvals of programs and allocation of funding, that is where the priority would lie. We said that directly to the chairmen when they were down in Toronto -- I guess it was last May -- and from time to time we have followed it up through written correspondence.

The member is quite right. It is not only the conservation authorities that have responsibility with respect to funding; it is also the Ministry of Natural Resources. We have a system of both province-wide and regional priority rating, which is done by the Ministry of Natural Resources field staff. Then we examine the ratings and try to allocate money on that basis, using the best advice that is given to us from the field and from the experts who work not only for the conservation authorities but also for the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mr. Laughren: You listen to them.

Hon. Mr. Pope: I try to. We do have a fixed budget, which has been reduced somewhat over the years; the honourable member is quite right. We did apply an in-year constraint last year to administrative budgets; we do not think that had a terrible impact in terms of their ongoing operations. In fact, we do not see much change; so we thought that constraint was available to us. We intend to continue with funding at a high level for these programs. We hope the regional priority system is working.

I can review again the particular problem with respect to your conservation authority. I have seen priority ratings for the northern region, including that project and a couple of others. We have a problem in Thunder Bay that we are quite concerned about. That is one of the reasons the Lakehead Conservation Authority is one of the four included in this supplementary estimate tonight. Before you came in, I read out the four projects that would be specifically dealt with. We are hoping this additional funding will clear up some of the backlog -- deficits and this kind of thing -- which will leave us free to apply additional funds to some of these other important projects.

I have tried to look at the regional priority program and to give a priority to some of the northern Ontario flooding problems that I have sensed could be dealt with more expeditiously. We also have some concerns in the Port Hope area that have to be speeded up: a construction program with two bridges.

This is the nature of the projects we are trying to clear up. We know they are all urgent and important. We know when there is flooding of homes that there is misery for the people who live in them. We are trying to assess the priorities and to get on with the program as quickly as we can.

We do not anticipate reductions on a regular basis from the budget base for the conservation authorities in the future. We expect to be carrying on with our regular funding base and going on to additional projects.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I have expressed a view before about conservation authorities in general. I have always been quite proud of their accomplishments, since I think it was during the leadership of the late Honourable Mitchell F. Hepburn that the concept really was established. It is true that George Drew expanded it somewhat. As a member of the select committee on conservation authorities, I supported the recommendation that expanded the authorities into almost all parts of southern Ontario.

I also observed that the areas of the north that established conservation authorities did it more or less to get additional funds for what I normally would consider municipal projects, such as drainage in hard rock areas. But the more I see them operating as time goes by and the more I see the needs of the community change, the less I am convinced they should continue unchanged.

One of the problems, and I think it is directly associated with the $2 million we are asked to vote, is a growing feeling among the taxpayers that somehow or other the conservation authorities operate in sort of an independent area. They get a good deal of their money and their authority from the minister, their membership partly from the municipalities and often their direction by the political appointment of the chairman.

I suppose the instance of the Metropolitan Toronto authority is a case in point. A good friend of all of us here, a former Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, was appointed chairman of the authority after he retired. I think the usual procedure is for the minister to name a person like Keith Reynolds, a well respected and competent person indeed, as a government appointee to the authority and then let it be known that you would like him to be elected chairman. The members of the authority usually know what they are doing in these matters. They spring to attention and raise their hands as the minister pulls the appropriate lever -- if I am not mixing a metaphor unduly.

In an instance such as this, one would think that Dr. Reynolds with his administrative experience, having been a sort of blocking runner for Premier Robarts for a while before he was demoted to the Deputy Ministership of Natural Resources, would be able to handle a difficult situation like that. Yet just as some of the ministers previously have experienced, he was mugged in the corridors of conservation authority power. Somehow or other, the other members of the Metropolitan Toronto authority felt they were having his authority unfairly and needlessly imposed on them.

I really do not know too many members of the authority, but I do know Keith Reynolds. I am rather surprised that he got into such a difficult situation. I have not read too much about it recently, but undoubtedly it is the sort of thing that detracts at least from the efficiency, if not the spirit and good will, of an authority.

9:20 p.m.

As time goes on and the facilities of the ministry expand particularly into southern Ontario, I do feel an argument can be made that the need for this rather elaborate and expensive mosaic of conservation authorities is receding, particularly since the direct lines of responsibility are somewhat obscure.

I suppose even the members of the authority, when they are arguing with the minister, if that ever happens, indicate that their main responsibility is to their member municipalities. Naturally, when they are talking to their member municipalities they indicate that their authority comes by act of Legislature and that in most instances the office of the chairman is in a sense dictated by the minister's will.

I know that in the Grand Valley authority, which I believe is the largest authority in Ontario and which is certainly the one of longest standing with a very well established administrative process, a lovely administrative building and many expensive facilities as well as extremely well-trained and highly paid staff, has become, as we have noticed with this government as it has grown older and older, more entrenched, perhaps less sensitive to the needs of the community and more expensive in the service it renders.

My own feeling is that it is time that we, as a Legislature, had a careful review of the efficiency of the authorities, particularly since the minister maintains --

Mr. Stokes: How about another select committee?

Mr. Nixon: I personally would not even require that, if you really want to know the truth, although I am expressing a personal opinion in these matters.

The minister, through his various offices, has a well-established series of facilities in our own area. We have parks that are national, provincial and municipal as well as some private ones, and I suppose the best ones of all are those that are operated by the conservation authority.

The duplication and expense is something that sometimes bothers me. When on occasion we go to the local conservation authority park, I feel that its administration is second to none. Its facilities are outstanding; so I have no criticism whatsoever that way. But I feel that perhaps in the future the responsibility of the ministry need not be restricted so much as it has been in the past to the northern part of the province. The ministry and its offices, in co-operation with the present establishment of conservation authorities, might very well move gradually to reduce the duplication.

The minister may very well have read the recommendations of the regional government review in Waterloo, which was chaired by another old stager around here, Bill Palmer, who had very good political connections at one time and became chairman of the municipal board. Then he went over his peak and moved down and out to some extent; but he was the review officer for the regional government in Waterloo. His recommendation was quite clear that it was time the government reviewed, and perhaps rationalized, the overlapping responsibilities between the minister and his conservation authorities.

I am somewhat reluctant to support the voting of an additional $1,878,000 on the basis that, having raised this matter over the past two or three years, there is still no indication from the minister or his advisers of any move at all to review and rationalize the overlapping of authority which I feel has resulted in needless expense to some extent.

There will be another occasion for me to express certain other doubts I have about the authorities' move into the control of local planning.

The minister prides himself on running his ministry with the infallibility referred to by the previous speaker. I do not admire him for that, to tell you the truth, and he should think carefully about it.

I understand that most of his senior staff are going to be taking retirement in the next few months and years. That is a problem that faces him, and in many respects faces all of us, in that we are going to lose some of the continuity that has been the strength of the ministry.

While in the past I have indicated my personal liking and respect for the minister, I do not want him to make any mistakes of a judgemental type, such as thinking that he can operate a ministry like his without getting all of the advice that is readily available to him and acting upon it.

I have expressed these concerns, which have grown in my own mind and get stronger year by year, and I shall continue to do so on behalf of my constituents who have expressed them to me. Whether or not he shares these concerns, I look forward to hearing the minister indicate that at least there is going to be a review of this overall policy so that some of the problems in leadership in conservation authorities, to which I have already referred -- that is, what I consider to be their infringement on municipal prerogatives in planning and the overlapping and consequent waste of public funds -- can be at least controlled if not eliminated.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns in relation to this vote and I hope the minister can respond to them. They have to do with what I consider to be the underfunding, generally, of the Canada/Ontario flood damage reduction program, which provides a great deal of the money that is used by the conservation authorities in flood damage reduction programs, whether they be at the initial stage of flood plain mapping or at subsequent stages of actual remedial work such as diking, runoff sluiceways, dams or whatever.

I know the minister cannot control this, but it seems to me the moneys provided across the country from the federal level of government are really inadequate to meet the demand on a year-to-year basis. In combination with that, the funding provided by the provincial level of government is also inadequate.

As a result, every year we get into a situation where it appears that the ministry officials who are responsible for reviewing the projects the conservation authorities are considering and for the other projects that the ministry carries out directly in areas that do not have conservation authorities -- for instance, some parts of northern Ontario -- are really in competition with the conservation authorities, if you are talking about competition for a finite number of dollars.

9:30 p.m.

In my riding specifically there are two projects that have been considered for some time. One is on the Goulais River, which is a major river and one of the largest in the province that does not have a conservation authority established on it. It has a long history of flooding, some very serious flooding, and there is a large population along both banks.

I know the ministry is considering funding a flood plain mapping program for the Goulais River valley as a first stage in moving towards actual engineering studies that might determine what kind of remedial works might be necessary to protect the residents along that river.

Also, there is a minor proposal for diking in the municipality of White River, which also experienced serious flooding in the last period.

This is very topical because, as the minister has already stated in this House, we have a tremendously high snow cover in the north this year, as we have had across the province as a result of the heavy winter, and we might be facing -- we all hope it does not happen -- very serious flooding if we have a quick freshet in conjunction with a heavy rainfall.

I would like the minister to respond specifically about what I consider to be an underfunding of the flood damage reduction program and about what he and this government are doing to try to free funds for that program, both at the provincial level and by encouraging the federal government to increase its funding in conjunction with the other provinces. This is a very important program; it is one that I think the minister agrees is a very important program and one that requires adequate funding.

I hope the two projects that I mentioned in my riding will go ahead this year. If we continue at a level of low funding across the province and the country, we will have a situation continuing where conservation authorities are competing with one another for a certain amount of money, and the ministry that is responsible for providing flood damage reduction in other areas that do not have conservation authorities will also be competing with them.

In a way, it is a bit of a conflict of interest on the part of ministry officials who have to divvy up the funds. I am not suggesting in any way that any preference has been given by ministry officials to one over the other. But we need more action in this area, and the fact that we seem to have been going towards actually lowering the fund rather than increasing it, I think is going in the wrong direction.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, I wrote to the minister some time ago with regard to some concerns I had about the operations of the conservation authority in my area.

I should digress at the outset and say that while I have no particular problems with the people administering the program, in my view we do seem to have lost our way in the context of priorities. I am quite concerned that we are not moving with the rapidity I would like to see, and certainly many of the people in my community would like to see, with regard to adequate flood control, particularly in Dundas and particularly on the Sydenham and Ann Street creeks.

Last March at this time we were subjected to some very serious flooding, which seems to occur with regularity every three or four years and causes a great deal of property damage for small businesses and for home owners in the area.

What is particularly ironic now is that this same conservation authority -- lacking either the will, the desire or the money to effect meaningful flood control as we see it necessary -- is in the process of inviting tenders for some wave-making device that will cost several million dollars and will be located somewhere in the Confederation Park area.

I do not mean to denigrate that idea. It may have some merit. I am not in a position to comment on it one way or the other, except I think it is a very expensive device and I do not know whether we would be well advised during these difficult economic times to allocate several million dollars for the acquisition of such a machine that would make waves in Lake Ontario and enhance the recreation facilities in that area. I am not in a position to comment on that, but in my view it seems very ill advised to see that kind of money spent when an immediate flood control situation exists in the Sydenham Creek area.

Another comment I would like to make, and I made it in my letter to the minister, was about a concern which I have and which other holders of public office in the community and, it would appear, other members of the Legislature share, and that is a concern about accountability within the conservation authorities themselves. I would really like to associate my comments with the remarks made by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon).

In my view, great steps could be taken to lessen the administrative control these agencies have and to bring them into line with the local councils, given guidelines that may already be in existence. I really feel that political accountability is very important. In my letter to the minister I indicated a particular concern about one of the appointees who is not politically accountable in any particular way. This gentleman is from Ancaster, and he indicated that he was not particularly prepared or eager to consider development permits from the town of Dundas. These comments were reported in the Hamilton Spectator. I sent them to the minister. I do not want to mention names. I do not want to get into a great dissertation on this, but I do find that those kinds of comments on their own should cause the government to take a long look at the appointments of individuals such as that, or at least re-evaluate that particular appointment. This individual is not elected, does not hold elected office; in fact, he is appointed by the government largely, I think, because of his support for the government party. He may have done a good job in the past, but if that is that individual's disposition with regard to development permits, I think we might possibly reevaluate his position.

In conclusion, I just want to say one thing that is entirely out of order. I was attracted to the position taken by the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) this afternoon in his question to the minister. I hope that in the spirit of nonpartisanship and objectivity, equity and fair play the minister could re-evaluate the employment situation of the young man who was mentioned in question period today. It is somewhat repugnant that someone discharging his responsibilities as a conservationist in his ministry would be dismissed as arbitrarily as it appears he has been.

Mr. Chairman: I'm sorry. I haven't been following the way the process has been going. Has the minister been responding at all or waiting for a conclusion? Okay, we will continue.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I would like to put a brief question, and I would like an explanation from the minister of the procedures with regard to the flood plain mapping and, more particularly, flood plain fill limits.

I guess it would now be about six months since I was contacted by the conservation authority in our area, which stated that before it could proceed to finalize the flood plain fill limits, the local MPP was required to give a letter stating his views on them, whether he was in accord with them or what changes he would like to see. I pointed out to the person from the authority that this seemed rather an impossible task, with all the technical requirements that it was necessary to determine, and I asked if he would send me a copy of the proposal for the fill limit.

I received a document that I suppose was about one foot by two and a half feet and contained about 200 pages relative to these limits, and I was asked to comment thereon. I got in touch with them further and stated that because of the highly technical nature of this it was unreasonable to ask an MPP with his limited resources to determine whether he supported this or what changes in detail he would like to see.

The whole project was held up for some six months because of my refusal to give a detailed reply. Subsequently, just a few days ago we came to an agreement that I would give a very vague reply to it after consulting with the local municipalities and so on.

9:40 p.m.

I am told this is the policy of the ministry and that they must have the local MPP's comments on these flood plain fill limits before they can proceed. I would like to hear from the minister whether that, in fact, is the case. I am quite sure it is. I have been told that by competent authority, but if so, what are the reasons for this?

I suspect very much that the reasons are political. This is because some members have objected to certain actions which have been taken by the conservation authorities, and have made some criticism of the conservation authorities and the government. That has not been the case with me but I know it has been true in some other cases, so they now want to silence the local members by getting them committed to any flood plain policy and get them committed in writing so they will not be able to criticize the decisions that are made later.

We recognize there are political difficulties in mapping flood plains and preventing people from doing anything with this land. We realize there are political difficulties. There are real political difficulties in saying to people that they may not put fill on this land because it will restrict the flow of the water, but it seems to me to be going a bit far to require the local MPP to pass judgement on these matters.

May I point out that the municipalities' comments are required. By and large, they have the technical staff to do this and they get a report from their engineering or planning staff on these matters. We do not have any such staff. We cannot go into the details that a municipality can go into or that the government can go into. I have no alternative but to believe this is for political reasons only. I hope the minister, when he gets up, will comment on that and will be either able to confirm the fact that these requests are being made to the MPPs or that perhaps it may have been only the local director there who determined this in this particular case.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of things that I have concerns about in regard to the conservation authority and maybe we can get a couple of answers in this debate. One is the flood plain mapping that has been done by the authorities, in particular by the Long Point Region Conservation Authority in Simcoe. They came in and designated a very large area that cannot be rebuilt because of flood plain mapping. As a matter of fact, there have been some adjustments to the original plan but I think there should be more co-operation between the local municipality and the local planning people because, as the minister is well aware, the region does have a strong planning department and there has to be co-operation between the two levels.

I would like him to take that into consideration and see if they cannot come up with an agreement that would be acceptable to the municipality, because the record of flooding along the Lynn River in that town shows there has not been any flooding of any consequence in my lifetime. Again, we have to take into consideration the values of the homes that are there and the businesses that lie within that area, so they can be replaced and the community can be given that assurance.

We have three conservation authorities within the region of Haldimand-Norfolk -- the Long Point Region Conservation Authority, the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Niagara South Conservation Authority. Again, planning through the Grand River Conservation Authority, we have had some problems where a municipality will support and the authority will overrule. I feel there should be some cooperation between the two and some recognition of the planning people within the region.

My other concern is the replacement of the dam at Dunnville, which is an old structure. Backing up a couple of years, the one at Caledonia, which has been in well over 100 years, was replaced three years ago and it really has improved by putting in a fish ladder. There is also potential for a lock facility there and it has been a great improvement. The last big expenditure will be the replacement of the one at Dunnville, which is deteriorating at the present time and they are considering either repairing or replacing it.

I am wondering, just to clarify it for the municipality, how the funding percentages are worked out, because again, going back to the Caledonia dam, I believe it was funded 65 per cent by the province and 45 per cent by the local municipality. I think an expenditure of that type is asking too much of the municipalities to pick up that portion. Going back to the old system, I believe it was picked up 80 per cent by the province and 20 per cent by the authority and approximately 7.5 per cent by the municipality. I wonder if the minister could explain how that works and if we can expect a little more support from the provincial funding to make sure this dam is replaced.

It not only provides recreation for the people in the area, but, particularly in Dunnville, it is going to give access to the people on Lake Erie who are boating sports enthusiasts to journey up to Cayuga and perhaps all the way on up to Brantford. It is going to be a real attraction for southern Ontario. It is within an 80-mile radius of Toronto and people from this area would have better access than they would have to northern Ontario for recreational purposes. I would like to have the funding concept explained to see how it would work out and if there could be any better arrangements.

The second project is in regard to water storage and the Watson Dam project. I have asked for a meeting with the minister and the Long Point Conservation Authority and the township of Norfolk to decide if we can move ahead with that particular project. It has been in the works since February 1964, and I have an up-to-date report on the progress that has been made. Most of the land has been purchased and I believe the municipality and the conservation authority would like to meet to see if it is feasible to complete that project. A considerable amount of money has already been spent and, as I say, I will send a copy of what has been done to date so that the minister might be familiar with the project and its progress.

I would like to have the minister respond to these two points.

Mr. Stokes: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, in the absence of the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy), I would like to say on his behalf and on behalf of the residents of Thunder Bay that we appreciate the fact that there is sufficient funding to cover flood controls on the Neebing and the McIntyre rivers. I know the Lakehead Conservation Authority and all the people who are affected by water levels in that area are appreciative of the funds that are being made available in the supplementary estimates and for that we thank the minister.

9:50 p.m.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise the issue of the conservation authority in relation to the county of Essex. The minister is aware that it is fairly flat ground and it does not take much to cause flooding in numerous areas of the county. It does not take a very heavy rainfall to have a considerable effect on the little river there. In addition, the sudden thawing of the heavy snowfalls of this past winter caused flood damage of over $2 million.

The municipalities appealed to the government for financial assistance to help those who suffered severely as a result of this flooding but were turned down. I think it was unfair on the part of the government not to provide assistance to those who were affected, especially since the conservation authority did not have sufficient funds to assist in the development of the projects so sorely needed in the county.

I would like the minister to look the situation over. I know the conservation authority makes the decisions that have to be made as far as the county is concerned, but because of lack of funding they find themselves at a disadvantage in remedying, in progressive stages, the problems that confront the county.

The Grand Marais drain is a project that has been under development for quite some time. It should be accelerated because of the potential damage which could be caused by what in some areas would be considered a minor rainfall. I bring this to the attention of the minister in the hope that he will be able to find a little extra funding to alleviate the problems in Essex county.

Hon. Mr. Pope: I thank the honourable members for their comments. To the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), I point out that the conservation authorities in northern Ontario were established in response to severe flooding problems. For instance, the Mattagami Region Conservation Authority was established some years after the 1960 flood of the Mattagami River, which flooded out 250 homes.

The Lakehead Conservation Authority was established in response to some habitual flooding problems and the need for flood plain mapping in the townships surrounding Thunder Bay, including the Cam River and others. The same can be said for the Nipissing and Nickel Belt conservation authorities. It was not simply for drainage but really in response to flooding issues as they came about; in fact, the 1960 Timmins flood is the flood standard for northern Ontario.

I agree with the honourable member that it is appropriate to review from time to time the status of the conservation authorities, their obligations under the applicable legislation and also the roles they adopt as they evolve. We have been trying to do that since last May. As I said earlier, we believe the priority should be in acquisition of lands in the flood plain, in flood control devices and mechanisms within those flood plain areas and also in erosion control where it is appropriate along the rivers and streams with which we are concerned.

Duplication and expense also bother me and we have been working to correct those. I agree with the honourable member that the facilities for the administration of the recreation areas are outstanding. We have been trying to indicate to the conservation authorities that they should turn their attention away from recreation facilities, interpretive and education centres, administrative buildings and pavement, to some of the priorities that I indicated previously.

For that reason I really agree with the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) that when you establish your priorities they should be in some of these very severe areas. If the project has already been approved we have been trying to withhold funding approval in order to give evidence of our own commitment to a change of priorities. With respect to this particular situation I am sure that will be the case, but I will review it in the light of your comments.

We have been having discussions with the federal government about the funding of the flood damage reduction program and perhaps some other changes that we think are required to the program. We hope some of the underfunding can be alleviated in the near future. We are also concerned, and I am concerned in the ministry, about areas that are not within the conservation authority boundaries and about how we can continue to put priority on flood reduction and flood prevention programs in those areas. I have to admit that I think we have not done as good a job as we could up to this point.

Individual members have raised a number of issues with respect to particular projects in their areas. I will take note of them and attempt to get back to each of the members who raised them tonight with specific responses. I have the details that the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) gave. I will review them in the next week or so and try and get back to him at that point.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) raised an issue that I find somewhat disconcerting. We have tried to indicate to the conservation authorities that we think it is appropriate for them to consult with the local member. I do not think the impression has been left that you have to get a formal letter of approval from the local member before flood plain mapping can be approved by the ministry, but I will review his comments in the light of his concern.

Referring back to the comments by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, we have been telling the conservation authorities, it is true, that in some cases we are not satisfied with the communication with the local councils and the local members, that we want it to improve and that it should involve not only discussions of the need for flood plain mapping programs but also the parameters of those programs, the results of the flood plain mapping, the priorities in land acquisition and the priorities in the construction of flood control devices.

There have been one or two instances where there have been some problems with participating municipalities on the one hand and the conservation authority on the other because of this lack of communication, with the fact that we then ask the municipalities to adopt the flood plain program as part of their official plan or zoning bylaw, it comes out of the blue and all sorts of conflicts arise because individual property owners within the municipality have not been consulted early enough in the piece. We have to do more work in that area, and we have been working with the conservation authorities on it.

With respect to provincial appointees, we indicate to them that they are to look at the entire water basin as their responsibility and try to address the priorities within that entire water basin and that we do not expect them to attach a priority to where they come from to the prejudice of other parts of the flood plain area. That is specifically set out in my letter notifying them of their appointment: their duty is to represent the entire province and the entire flood plain area.

We are concerned about divisions that may take place within the conservation authority structures because of the different municipal representatives and their attempts to get priority for funding and projects in their particular municipality within the flood plain area. We are trying to work at alleviating that, although I suspect it will continue to be a problem.

We do believe there must be municipal co-operation with flood plain mapping projects. We are aware that there is some opposition to our flood plain program from some municipalities and from some counties. We do not think it is appropriate. We think the expertise has been developed in this province at this time. On the basis of past experience the flood plain mapping programs that have been instituted superimpose the natural flood lines; actual floods have been almost bang on, and we can go to different parts of the province and demonstrate that. We hope that with this kind of performance and this kind of expertise we will get more municipal acceptance.

10 p.m.

We are trying to accelerate the projects, as I indicated, to give evidence of our priorities. We hope every conservation authority and every riding in Ontario will see the benefits from that kind of program.

I would like to thank the members for their comments. I may have missed some of the points but I will try to address them in my correspondence to the members.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up on a comment made by the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) because I do not think the minister answered it.

The minister is probably aware of a letter he received from the city of Windsor regarding assistance from the conservation authority to assist with the flooding problem we have experienced there. Has it ever been the policy of the conservation authorities to fund the types of requests that the cities have made for storm sewers? The major problem in the flooding we experienced in the city last year was the lack of storm sewers. Has your ministry ever done that? What are your thoughts in responding to the city of Windsor about that request?

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, if I could make a brief comment too, I feel somewhat better with the answer of the minister relative to this. I think it is a very wise move if the instructions really have been to consult more fully with the local MPP, with the councils and with the people affected. However that certainly was not the content of the letter I received. Perhaps it would be helpful to the minister if I turned that letter over to him, together with a copy of my reply.

Much of the discussions between us took place by phone, but I did have the original letter and made the final reply. If there is a misunderstanding in the area served by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, or any other areas in this province, then perhaps that misunderstanding can be cleared up.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member for Windsor-Riverside, I am not aware of any precedent for the conservation authority program funding the oversizing of storm sewers. I am aware, for instance, of the city of Timmins where the storm sewer did drain into the town creek, which caused some flooding problems. The conservation authority program did get involved in the acquisition of lands along the banks of the creek, and building constructions of stone and wire mesh along them. But that is the extent of the conservation authority's participation that I am aware of.

Mr. Cooke: Do you consider this to be their terms of reference?

Hon. Mr. Pope: I do not think so but I am not sure. I will have to check before I give you a definite comment on that.

Mr. Wildman: It is called riprap.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Right.

Vote 2502 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes consideration of the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS

On vote 904, economic policy program; item 2, regional economic development:

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, the ministry is requesting $6 million to be transferred to the city of Barrie to complete one of our requirements for the annexation of certain lands adjacent to Barrie for its future growth.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. One is, given the fact that the minister knew this was going to be a reality and it was going to happen in this fiscal year, I wonder why it was not in the budget originally. One always wonders when we have supplementary estimates if the reason these are brought in, particularly towards the end of the year, is that it makes the minister's fiscal plate look a little more interesting and a little better, and the fact that his deficit might have been quite a little larger than he projected roughly a year ago at this time, give or take a month.

My question therefore is, as this Barrie expansion has been in the works for some time, why did we not find it in the budget under vote 904, item 1, where your estimate for 1981-82 was only $4,355,000? Why are you bringing it in at this particular time?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The answer is simple. I inherited this problem from many years back and in fact the negotiations were not complete until midway through the year, and one could not predict with any accuracy what the final settlement would be nor what cash flows would be required within this fiscal year.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, if I may just ask one question, what will all these supplementary estimates do to the provincial deficit and where are we going to get the money? Is this going to add to your net cash requirements?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That is hardly on this particular estimate, as my friend knows. However, with the competence of this government, one should not worry about what it will do to our final fiscal requirements. As you know, you are in the hands of the most competent government in Canada.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Where did you have supper?

Hon. F. S. Miller: You are the second person to ask me that tonight. Obviously, the truth is that a number of in-year changes have occurred which you have been discussing piece by piece across the evening and the sum total of them is to increase our cash requirements.

Unlike most provinces, we do issue quarterly estimates through Ontario Finances, showing the in-year changes as they occur. I think the last time one was printed, December 31, 1981, it showed, if I recall, a cash requirement of $1,464 million as being the estimate at that time. I cannot, with any accuracy, upgrade that but when that latest figure was printed it was based upon the then known overspending amounts, some of which are occurring before you today. The major changes since then in terms of cash requirements, either up or down, will depend upon the revenue flows against forecast rather than the spending flows.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Chairman, initially I want to indicate a little dissatisfaction with the kind of process we go through where we get a supplementary budget item and it just indicates the number and the title of the section. It does not tell us at all what we are talking about. Here we are talking about a $6 million expenditure out of a total package in this particular expenditure of $24 million, as I understand it; this is the first instalment.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, the first is one.

Mr. Cooke: Two instalments? So it is $12 million? And the second one is $18 million? In any case, we are talking about several million dollars. You can explain when you have the floor exactly how the instalments are going to be paid. But it seems to me we are entitled to a better explanation as to what this is all about and why it is that when there is an annexation agreement there has to be this kind of what appears on the surface -- you can tell me whether I am right or wrong -- bribery on the part of the government to achieve the annexation which has been under negotiation for a considerable period of time.

10:10 p.m.

There have been other annexations that have taken place in this province and there has not been the expenditure of several million dollars to achieve that annexation, under this vote especially. I really fail to see how this fits under regional economic development. Is this a slush fund? Exactly what is this item in the ministry's estimates?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, the question is fair enough and I have no objection to it. I will try to answer it fairly too. The regional priority budget in southern Ontario has for the last while approximated $5 million to $6 million a year, I think you will find, if you check back a few years. Some years back it was considerably higher. In northern Ontario I believe it was closer to $60 million and it is in the Ministry of Northern Affairs budget, as I recall. That indicates the much higher per capita priority we place upon northern Ontario for the development of any economic or industrial infrastructure.

The relatively lower amounts in southern Ontario have been a result of the high level of existing infrastructure there as opposed to the north -- the cost per person of putting it in or any other measure one wishes to use. The regional priority budget can only be justified if the normal fiscal capacity of a community cannot afford the measures required to improve the economic base of the community.

In a case like Barrie-Innisfil, where there are a number of problems that have resulted from hotchpotch unplanned development, the cost of putting in sewers, water, etc. is quite high. A few years back -- I guess when my predecessor was discussing it with the city and encouraging the annexation of Innisfil and other parts -- it was estimated to be perhaps $70 million or $80 million. That was in an era when projections of population across Ontario were ever upward at whatever rate one had in that current year.

Time has shown that some of the projections of the 1960s and 1970s were optimistic. Negotiations with the city of Barrie and with the township of Innisfil lowered the growth expectations and therefore the cost of servicing potential industrial land to be annexed by the city. However, the province had encouraged that annexation in the interests of all the people present and I believe you will find a very amicable settlement was reached. It was negotiated at a local level and assisted by the province's regional priority budget.

After a number of discussions with the various parties, it was agreed that something like $24 million was adequate and we agreed to pay it in instalments and in advance. It has been done to permit the industrial growth of that area in an orderly way to allow the municipalities to bank the money until such time as they require it, which is unusual by itself.

We felt that obligation. I say that quite sincerely. I, as a minister who inherited a whole series of estimates, some of which turned out to be grossly optimistic, felt the least I could do was put my money where my mouth was. I felt I should try to get the thing solved, get the communities to talk together, get them to resolve it amicably instead of in the courts. I wanted them to get on with the process of seeing growth in an area where, through the good graces of nature and geography, we have seen a fair amount of growth occur.

Mr. T. P. Reid: And Volkswagen.

Hon. F. S. Miller: And Volkswagen, which assisted greatly. I thank the member for reminding me.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Somebody has to.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, I am getting to that point in age where I have to be reminded of almost everything. In any case, we are doing our best to see that the infrastructure needed to encourage job creating entities is there.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss another issue dealing with the question of the economic policy program with the minister, because as I read the supplementary estimates that is the area we are in.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Only for Barrie.

Mr. Roy: The minister should not try to limit it. His own paper discusses a question of economic policy programs and I would like to discuss one of the programs that is not part of the $6 million, but is certainly part of the economic policy program of this ministry and of this minister. That has to do with the sales tax problem.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Point of order, Mr. Chairman: I do not think any member of the opposition will argue or disagree with me when I say that through the interim supply motion I have probably expanded the rules for debate very widely, perhaps, unfortunately, to the point where they can take some time.

Tonight we are on a specific vote and item relating to a specific expenditure and I request that the debate be limited to that.

Mr. Cooke: Point of order, Mr. Chairman: I think the provincial Treasurer has to take some responsibility. When these supplementary estimates are filed, we are not given any indication of what the money is being spent on. We are simply told it is item 904 and it comes under economic policy program. We are talking about $6 million and the Treasurer has the gall to say to us that we can talk only about this one expenditure in Barrie.

If we are to be restricted to the one item, perhaps the Treasurer should file a description of what the expenditure is, what it is for and some background information with us. They cannot have it both ways.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The opposition critic kindly spoke to me this afternoon. We exchanged certain points of view. I suggested people he could contact also, did I not?

Mr. Cooke: This afternoon I came over to you.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, you know I have great confidence and respect for the chair at all times and you know that, following parliamentary tradition, it is the chair that decides what is in order and what is not in order. It is not the minister. It is not within the purview of the minister to decide to say he has shown some latitude in accepting certain questions and he will be tougher on this occasion.

Mr. Nixon: He is asking for trouble when he talks about interim supply.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We may well vote against this if you are not careful.

Mr. Roy: It seems to me it is the chair that decides. If the chair decides the issue I am raising validly falls within what is called economic policy program, and I am talking about an item given to us by the minister --

Mr. Nixon: It didn't say anything about Barrie.

Mr. Roy: That is right. I should be allowed to proceed. I want to make it clear that the issue is the decision on the part of the minister and the government to allow the reduction of the sales tax on the sale of motor vehicles. That is part of the economic policy program of this government. That is what I want to discuss briefly with the minister.

Mr. Martel: Point of order, Mr. Chairman: I want to ask the chairman if he knows what this item is all about. Has the minister advised him specifically? Has he been supplied with the background papers so that the chairman can rule if someone is out of order or not, or is he supposed to accept the Treasurer's word and say it is restricted to this, unless the Treasurer is prepared to provide the documentation with respect to the expenditure he is talking about?

Surely it is irresponsible on the part of the minister to get up and say it has something to do with interim supply and that when we had interim supply a couple of weeks ago he allowed latitude. Who is he kidding?

10:20 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further point of order? You are not helping this, Mr. Treasurer.

Hon. F. S. Miller: On the point of order, I have no authority higher than your own previous Speaker of this House, who alleged that I am the very person who changed the rules.

Mr. Martel: Well, you might have changed the rules, but if you are going to change the rules you should abide by them and provide the documentation so we would know specifically what item of expenditure you are talking about and so the chairman could rule whether the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) is out of order or not. How is he supposed to rule?

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury East has actually brought up a very interesting point. Is there any further discussion on the point of order brought forward by the member for Ottawa East in regard to the elimination of sales tax on cars and whether this applies to supplementary estimates?

There is no further discussion on it. The reason I asked for the opening remarks from the Treasurer was that in the earlier part of estimates covering the Ministry of Government Services, that particular minister did not have any opening statement. The member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) got into a wide-ranging discussion. I looked for some interesting comments from other members, and the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) contributed the fact that because the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman) did not refer to any specific aspect of the estimates it was therefore open to a wide-ranging discussion.

I agreed with that, supported by a further legal technicality that I know the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) supported. In this particular case the minister specifically indicated what the supplementary estimate was attuned to -- that was expenditure in regard to annexation in Barrie -- and I am going to rule that the member for Ottawa East is out of order.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, through you to the government, including the provincial Treasurer: Surely what has emerged here is a lesson, which is that in the future when we have supplementary estimates there should be something comparable to what happens with general estimates: that is, a background indication of exactly what it is the money is going to be spent for. It is not good enough for the minister to get up when we begin to consider the supplementary estimates and say that this is what we are now going to talk about. How are the opposition members going to come in fully prepared? They may discover that it is totally different from what they thought it was. We are entitled to know what it is so we can prepare ourselves on the opposition side. Then the minister will not be in a position to have it both ways, to go very free and wide if he wants and to shut it down if he wants. You will know what you have the obligation to impose, and we will know what we have the obligation to speak to.

Mr. Chairman: I agree fully with your comments, I really do; and whatever process is used among House leaders or the ministers for negotiating the question of further explanation, I think it would be a worthwhile area to proceed in.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I want to support what the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) have said. I prepared on the basis that this was a general discussion of economic policy programs; I did not know that he was going to talk about Barrie. It seems to me that the sales tax rebates on the sale of motor vehicles form part of what is called economic policy programs. I prepared accordingly to discuss that topic with the minister. In fact, when he came here shortly before, I told him I had strong reservations about a certain part of that program and certain developments that took place or will be taking place in the near future.

So it seems to me that my colleagues have made the point very well that if the critics or people interested in participating in these estimates are going to be properly prepared, surely there is an onus on the minister or on the government department involved to tell us fully and completely, as they do in ordinary estimates, exactly what this item is going to be about so that we do not have to wait until the opening statement of the minister. How are the critics going to be prepared if they have to wait for the opening comments from the minister?

I appreciate that you have a tough and difficult decision, Mr. Chairman, and that you want to expedite the work of this assembly, but the fact remains that I think that, given --

Mr. Chairman: I am allowing you great latitude because I think it was a very good point of order. I agree with you totally.

Mr. Roy: You have showed great latitude. That is why I have such great respect for you when you are sitting in that chair, but the fact remains that when the onus is exercised in such situations and the government does not show more willingness to lay down exactly what we are going to discuss, then the opposition should be given as wide a latitude as possible within that particular vote. I am not saying that I could discuss, for instance, questions which are outside what is called economic policy programs; but surely this was part of it, and I feel that the onus should have been exercised in my favour.

Mr. Chairman: Well, really we are chewing out the clock but it is an interesting point and the Treasurer is dying to respond.

Hon. F. S. Miller: On a point of order: Let me suggest to you that I suspect the House leaders ordered the business some time back. I suspect the supplementary estimates, or the topics to be discussed, were tabled with the House leaders. I have had at least one member of an opposition party approach me. I would like to suggest that I and, I suspect, my colleagues, as ministers are anxious to help our opposition, no matter how we may disagree at times, to debate meaningfully. I would suggest they have not taken the time to research what was on the agenda.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Treasurer, you are being awfully provocative and in this situation I think we are having a very good discussion in terms of some of the procedure on supplementary estimates. I am sure the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) is trying to make a point of order, but we are debating my ruling. You are not going to debate my ruling? All right.

Mr. Nixon: I am responding to what the Treasurer said, something about "Surely the House leaders knew what this was." That is not the fact and he certainly would not want to mislead the House intentionally or otherwise. The only information we have is the printed supplementary estimates that were before me just a moment ago and are now before my friend the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy). The time for supplementary estimates was established by agreement and you have ruled that my honourable friend is out of order in pursuing anything but payments to Barrie, for reasons you feel are good and sufficient. Undoubtedly, we will accept that but certainly we cannot accept the Treasurer indicating that somehow he conveyed to some of us additional information when that is simply not the case.

Mr. Chairman: Well, in fairness, we will hear from the other House leader and that is it.

Mr. Martel: To support my friend, I do not know how the Treasurer can get up in his place and suggest that the House leaders had more information with respect to what was being presented than the rest of the members who received the supplementary estimates. All the House leaders do is try to arrange a schedule convenient to everyone. We do not have any greater in-depth knowledge with respect to the specific item than that which is before us. That is why I suggested in my initial point of order that the Treasurer should specifically indicate what the item is about so we would be adequately prepared to discuss that item. He has not done that. He might have given you a statement or he might have said something in a statement, but it is much too late to give a statement to guide the chairman once the debate has started.

Mr. Chairman: Order. You have made your point very eloquently.

Mr. Martel: The members should know certainly ahead of time, maybe by --

Mr. Chairman: The member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I have a question with regard to government policy in regard to annexations like the one in Barrie. I want to know if it is government policy that if an annexation as happened in Barrie is legislated by the assembly, the government then owes some kind of obligation to the municipality to assist with funding the excess costs and start-up and so on entailed in that annexation, whereas if an annexation takes place via the Ontario Municipal Board route, that is not necessarily the case.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer that. My colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and government House leader (Mr. Wells) is now responsible for those annexations. I handle the regional priority budget part of it.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the attention of the House that we have recently had an annexation in my riding where a small town annexed a considerable portion of two small municipalities. This annexation, which is beneficial to the community as a whole, has caused grave financial consequences for the township of Malden. I think it is completely outrageous that the Treasurer of Ontario would have money for some municipalities that are involved in annexations and can completely disregard the problems of others.

I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of -- stop instructing the chair as to what to do; I know exactly what you are doing -- I brought this to the attention of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and I brought it to the attention of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) and they both pooh-poohed the issue and they have not done anything about it. Maybe somewhere in the $6 million, we can find a couple of hundred thousand dollars that your government owes the township of Malden.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion? The member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Swart: Perhaps I should move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Chairman: Well, we are not going to finish this.

On motion by Hon. Mr. McCaffrey, the committee of supply reported certain resolutions.

The House adjourned at 10:31 p.m.