Journal des débats 1982-mai-28 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Mackenzie: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, at the end of the session, I believe the Solicitor General (Mr. Taylor) may have inadvertently misled the House. I ask your ruling on this.

I asked whether he was prepared to bring in legislation amending the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act to prevent types of undercover activities from going on in future in labour disputes where the rights of workers are at stake. The response of the minister was, "On the last question, there is a draft piece of legislation put forward that will be coming forward in regard to the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act."

My question was specific in dealing with this problem where, according to testimony before the board, a chap was blowing up the railway tracks into the plant. Incidentally, he has just been relicensed. Inasmuch as the amendments to the act we have been given contain nothing to deal with this kind of situation, I am wondering whether the minister inadvertently misled this House.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on that matter I was indicating to the member that there was a piece of legislation being introduced. I do not think in the answer I gave at that time was any indication that it would be correcting that situation. I was indicating that there was a piece of legislation which had been introduced previously by another minister in this capacity regarding those activities.

I cannot say it will clear up the activity the honourable member has spoken of, except that a new piece of legislation will be introduced in the Legislature with respect to the legislation under which security guards and private investigators operate, regarding the performance of their duties. It will not correct the activity stated by the member. There will not be any piece of legislation in regard to that style of activity in that it is an activity performed by private security investigators and by private investigators, be they hired by a union, a corporation or anyone in their activity as private investigators.

While I am on the matter, I have not found it yet but I was going over the answer --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the member for Hamilton East --

Mr. Mackenzie: There is a further matter.

Mr. Speaker: I think you have raised your point of privilege and it has been responded to. You are not supposed to debate it, as you know.

Mr. Mackenzie: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I believe another matter has arisen as a result of this. It is the allegation here and to the press after question period yesterday that unions also might be involved in putting undercover agents in a picket line situation. I would like the minister to name one or to give us some background on that. I have certainly never seen it in all my years in the trade union movement. That is a slur on the trade union movement.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the Solicitor General will take note of your concern and respond at the appropriate time.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is not the role of the minister to cast aspersions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Neither is it my role, as I pointed out in my ruling yesterday. I would hope all members would take note of that. Does the Solicitor General have a statement?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have just received a copy of the answers to the questions yesterday on this matter. I have not found the exact spot but there was some request of me by the newspaper reporter as to whether I indicated the company employing the services of the security firm was the one being informed. That was not correct. The registrar would inform the company that employs the registered security investigator, not the contracting persons.

There was some confusion by the reporters asking me that question. I would like to clear that up as a point of clarification. The registrar informs the company that is the employer of the registered security guard, not the company, firm or individual that is contracting the services of that licensed person.

10:10 a.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SUNCOR PRACTICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister is no doubt aware that when his government purchased a piece of Suncor last year the tar sands plant was the largest emitter of sulphur dioxide in western Canada. In fact, it was the ninth largest in Canada, emitting some 93,000 metric tons per year.

He is aware that at that point the company was engaged in negotiations with Diamond West Energy Corp. to involve some technology that would go a long way to reducing those emissions, up to some 85 per cent. He is also aware that in April 1982 that contract was cancelled, resulting in a lawsuit against Suncor.

Why would the minister not have used his influence through his directors on the board of Suncor to make sure they went ahead with that technology, to clean up some of those emissions and to further show and prove his government's strong commitment to environmental concerns?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will understand that matters of litigation are usually left to courts to resolve. Indeed, this would appear to be the subject matter of some litigation and we might well leave it with the courts to adjudicate as to the outcome of that.

With respect to the preamble of the question, it is my understanding that this company does comply with the standards with respect to air quality control which are established by the government of Alberta but, notwithstanding that, it continues to seek ways to further reduce its levels of emission.

Mr. Peterson: The minister has been aware of this impending lawsuit for a considerable length of time now. The writ has been issued just recently. He is aware that the ostensible reason given by Suncor to Diamond West for the cancellation of that contract was that Mr. Lewis, the Suncor technical division head, in a conversation with Mr. Bovers, the chairman of Diamond West, said, "We can't bring in this technology here, because we have a bunch of Newfy fishermen here who don't know how to make this place work." He was saying they do not have the competence to run what they already have, let alone bring in new technology to reduce sulphur emissions. Is the minister aware of that? What is his response?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, the day-to-day operations of this company are left with the management. I am sure there are a number of decisions which management has to make from day to day.

The information I have categorically denies that the company made that statement; however, we are not involved in the day-to-day management. I repeat, it is my understanding that this company complies with the law of Alberta with respect to air quality and any litigation that has been commenced will be decided by the courts and not here in the Legislature.

Mr. Peterson: Does the minister not honestly feel in retrospect, now that he has some hindsight on this whole question, that this, in conjunction with so many other problems, has turned out to be a terrible embarrassment for him? He is not prepared to come in and be forthcoming on these questions in the House. He has never answered a question on the subject of Suncor in a straight and forthcoming way.

Does the minister not feel now, given all the other problems he has, that it is time to start the process of at least trying to disinvest, trying to get rid of the government's interest and let other people, who are at least competent and care about the situation, try to run it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: No.

Mr. Peterson: He has learned his lessons well at the foot of the Premier (Mr. Davis), has he not, Mr. Speaker? I have a question for the Minister of Education.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You could do with a little instruction.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier is still gloating about Shannon Tweed, is he not?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Jealousy will get you nowhere.

Mr. Peterson: Why is it the Premier came in yawning all morning? That is what I want to know. I want the Premier to know that I only read the articles in there; I do not look at the pictures. I do not know as much about her as the Premier does, but I do compliment him on his taste.

Mr. Nixon: What is she really like?

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question, please, unless that was the question.

Mr. Peterson: Jimmy Carter lusted in his heart; the Premier is lusting openly. That is the difference.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Speak for yourself.

Mr. Peterson: I know nothing about these things. I am a very happily married man. I have three small children and a cat.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am still ahead of you. We have five children and two grandchildren.

Mr. Peterson: You are ahead of me now but I have momentum, believe me.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will believe that when you reach five.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure these biographies are very interesting. However, having said that, I draw the Leader of the Opposition's attention to the fact that it is question period. A new question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I cannot think of a question, I am so flabbergasted.

Mr. Speaker: Try.

Hon. Mr. Davis: She did not distract me that much.

Mr. Peterson: Well, the Premier has been acting funny for the past 24 hours.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. I had the opportunity to tour Babcock and Wilcox recently. The minister will be aware that it is one of the few factories operating at full capacity in this province, with three shifts a day, seven days a week. However, they are in such a difficult position with respect to skilled labour that they had to spend $300,000 of their own money searching for welders. They advertised all across Canada and could find none, and had to go to England to bring in some 40 welders to work in their factory.

How does the minister feel that speaks about the educational and apprenticeship programs here? Does she not feel she should stand up and say that we have a very important and big role in government to train those technical people for the jobs that are available?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member were aware of the kinds of things that have been going on he would know we have already assumed a great deal of responsibility in that area. The number of industrial apprentices has moved dramatically from almost zero to nearly 4,000 in the short period of three years.

I think the specific problem regarding welders has been exacerbated in the past several months --

An hon. member: That's a big word.

Hon. Mr. Davis: At least it is good grammar. "Disinvest" I do not think is a word.

Mr. Speaker: Ignore the interjections, please.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I confess to being somewhat discombobulated by this total emphasis by the Leader of the Opposition on Playboy magazine and certain female attributes --

Mr. Peterson: She is just jealous because she never made it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would never have aspired to that because I could not have. I do not have unrealistic expectations. However, when the member speaks about momentum I would like to remind him that it will take him a lot of momentum to reach six children, and he will never have achieved the momentum that a female has in producing them.

The problem of welders is one of which we are very much aware. The apprenticeship branch and the community colleges have been pursuing actively an increase in numbers of recruits to that program. We train in many of these areas for Canada without vigorous support, in some instances, from either the federal government or other provinces. We will continue to do that, but it seems to me that we do not have any licence to tell those who are trained in Ontario that they absolutely must remain in Ontario. One of the cornerstones of the new Charter of Rights in this country is that mobility is a right of individual Canadians.

Obviously we are going to have to continue to train and to recruit more vigorously in many directions, and that is one of them.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, it must be payday or something around here, or somebody is spiking the Ontario apple juice. Everybody is in such a good mood. However, I will see what I can do to end that.

Has the minister seen the article in the Sun this morning about her colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) recruiting computer specialists in England at great expense to the taxpayers? Is she aware that her own government is seriously short of skilled computer experts? We heard that before the standing committee on public accounts and it is reinforced by this article.

What is the minister herself doing to ensure that we have skilled people in the government of Ontario? What programs is the ministry running? Why are we not producing more people in the school system of Ontario and directing them and telling them where the job opportunities are?

10:20 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the article in the Sun this morning which recounts certain activities on the part of ministries. I remind the honourable member that computer science, computer programming and a number of the related or relevant activities in that area share a worldwide shortage. This is not a matter that is a problem only in this province or just in Canada or just in North America; it is a problem in all jurisdictions at this point.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I hope they don't find life on Mars.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am sorry, but this is a fact. In addition, the member undoubtedly knows, if he read the article beyond the headline, that there are 4,500 university students in computer science right at this point. The enrolment numbers have been increasing dramatically each year for the past several years and probably will continue to do so.

In addition, the community colleges have been making a vigorous effort to develop the kind of technological programs that provide for computer programmers and computer support staff, and they have been doing a very good job.

Unfortunately, the article suggests there has been no survey of graduate placement in post- secondary areas since 1979. There is one covering the period up to November 13, 1981, which demonstrates that in the first couple of years the graduate placement was unfortunately not as effective as it might have been, but it certainly has been in 1980 and 1981.

We shall continue our efforts to interest young people in that kind of career choice and to provide training programs to permit them to enter it.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, when will the ministries of Education and Colleges and Universities come to the determination that the apprenticeship system in place right now is an utter and complete failure? There are two simple reasons for that. One is that at this time we have a 75 per cent drop-out rate in the apprenticeship system because of the economic times and the fact that employers fire the apprentices first.

Second, does the minister not understand that once the students have gone through their training they do not have any guarantee that the employers are going to guarantee jobs for them?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure an employer could ever guarantee a job, but I am certain there could be a number of activities related to the guaranteeing of the maintenance of the training program for apprentices, even during economic downturns.

I have to remind the honourable member that within some contractual arrangements between trade unions and companies, if there is an economic downturn, the apprentices are those who are let out first. We have been trying to work with the Ontario Federation of Labour to devise mechanisms that would ensure this did not happen. Surely one of the greatest opportunities during economic downturns is to provide training for people in order that we will be ready for the economic upturn when it occurs.

In addition, we have been working with the federal government to try to find ways to assist employers to ensure that during economic stasis there is some support for the maintenance of training programs through apprenticeship.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, referring back to the original question dealing with Babcock and Wilcox, does the Minister of Education not consider that this company has a special responsibility, since it has done hundreds of millions of dollars of work with Ontario Hydro in manufacturing our boilers, some of them for the second time over, and that it probably should have a leading system of apprenticeships rather than the inadequate system it has at present?

Does the minister not feel that she has a special responsibility to see that this company is leading the other industries in the province in establishing an apprenticeship program that could turn out the welders with the very special and precise knowledge that is necessary for the atomic industry, which could then be transferred to our other high-technology industries, rather than sitting back and saying there is nothing she can do and the federal government is not giving enough leadership?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not say that there was nothing we could do and that the federal government was not doing anything. There has been some kind of inertia which it has been necessary to overcome, and I am slightly optimistic that we are in the process of overcoming it.

Mr. Nixon: How long have you been Minister of Education?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Almost long enough to find out what goes on in Ottawa. At any rate, the specific concern we have is that not only Babcock and Wilcox but also every employer in this province, manufacturing any kind of product, should be training toward its own self-sufficiency. Every company should be doing that.

I do not think one can single out one company above another, because there are some that are doing an absolutely superb job. I am pleased to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that a number of companies have become actively involved in apprenticeship training in the past two years. But it is my concern; it is a concern that was expressed by the Ontario Manpower Commission and by this government.

Is it rational to consider a levy grant system when we know for a fact that it would add an additional 20,000 public servants to make it function within Canada and would not be a positive force, because Britain is considering closing down its levy grants?

Mr. Nixon: Your program is useless; it is a waste of money.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, it is not. The member is wrong, and I will be glad to prove it to him.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, you will be appalled to know that I had the opportunity to visit the beautiful community of Peterborough on Wednesday and I have a question for the Minister of Health.

Is the minister aware that the St. Joseph's General Hospital in Peterborough had a deficit in 1981-82 of $495,000 and is projecting a deficit in 1982-83 of $632,000 and that as a result of this deficit position the board of directors of that hospital has taken the decision to cut an entire surgical ward out of the hospital? They are going to cut 43 surgical beds, which is the entire men's surgical ward.

The board has already given layoff notices to 64 members of the hospital staff; they have received their termination notices. That total comprises 34 nurses, 27 hospital workers and three office staff.

Is the minister aware of this appalling event? If he is, and I believe he is, can he assure the House today that he does not intend to allow this major hospital cutback to take place? Will he advise the House what measures he intends to take to restore to the hospital the resources to keep that hospital open and operating at adequate capacity?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think it is important --

Hon. Mr. Davis: David, don't lose your momentum.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Lose momentum? On the way to the graveyard?

I am sure the member will share with me the concern --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Copps: Where is Frank Miller, Larry? I guess you've stepped back to number one.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am sure the member for Bellwoods will agree with me that the hospital -- well, he will not agree with me, but I think the hospital's activity, in trying to get more money out of the ministry to suit its own particular view of its demands, is inappropriate. I think if we were to fund hospitals on the basis of threats to lay off workers or to close wards, then obviously my ministry's budget could be doubled or tripled in size. We cannot carry on business that way and we cannot allow the system to operate that way.

We have succeeded in building a health care system in this province based upon co-operation between hospitals, which understandably always want more money, and the government, which tries to balance that off with what it believes the hospitals need. If we move from that to a system whereby hospitals feel they can manoeuvre more money out of us by threatening to close wards or wings or lay off people, then the system obviously becomes one in which we lose all control.

The hospital currently has a further appeal before the ministry for more funding. We are not about to underfund any hospital, nor are we about to give any hospital more money than it needs to properly operate. Therefore, more properly, the hospital ought to meet with us, as we have invited them to do and as we are going to do, to further their appeal to the ministry and to try to sort out which of their demands and requests are appropriate and which are not.

I can assure the honourable member, as I have assured the honourable Speaker of this assembly who has raised this matter on many occasions with me, that we will fund this hospital to the appropriate level. We will not fund the hospital on the basis of the threats they make to us, nor any other hospitals because of threats they may make to us.

10:30 a.m.

Mr. McClellan: Does the minister not understand that this hospital has already taken this action? The staff have already received their termination notices. I believe the effective closing date is July 1 and this community is faced with the loss of a little less than half of its surgical beds in one of its two hospitals at a time when, on any given day, one can go into the emergency department either at St. Joseph's General Hospital or at the Peterborough Civic Hospital and find between 10 and 15 patients lying on stretchers -- they are not in the hallways any more, they are in the treatment rooms of the emergency department -- waiting for admission.

The hospitals are already overcrowded, already pushed and strained to the limit, and this impending cutback is going to be a catastrophe for the health care system of that community. Does the minister not understand that? Is he not prepared to personally intervene and make sure this does not happen?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member is suggesting that because of the layoffs for which notices have been given, the ministry simply write a cheque for whatever the latest request is --

Mr. Martel: Don't be silly.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What is the alternative?

Mr. Martel: Why don't you go down and meet with them?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: You're the Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Quite properly, the House leader for the NDP says, "Why don't you go down there and meet with them?" May I say that is the appropriate route. The ministry has been meeting with the hospital on an ongoing basis as recently as May 10. Notwithstanding that continuing series of meetings, during the course of those meetings, the hospital chose to serve notice of layoffs. The House leader for the NDP now regrets his intervention because he points out exactly the problem.

Mr. Martel: No, I don't regret it at all because you tried to play a game but finally, as you always do, you covered up. You should have answered the question straight in the first place.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) he is completely out of order and I shall not caution him again.

Mr. Martel: He shouldn't answer my interjections either.

Mr. Speaker: That is enough.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I say very simply if it is the position of the health critic for the NDP, who spent some time down in Peterborough yesterday, that we should give all the money that St. Joe's hospital is currently demanding, then he should really stand up and say that. If he is suggesting we give them the necessary amount that we believe is appropriate to continue to fund that hospital, then he should say that, because if he says the latter, then that is exactly what we are in the process of doing.

There are some hospitals throughout the system that, from time to time, take what I think to be inappropriate steps by way of closing or threatening to close wings, knowing that will bring this kind of public pressure upon the ministry and may lever more money out of the ministry than is appropriate. I do not think that is fair to the taxpayers or the citizens in that area.

May I also say that if the member believes that on each and every day of the year, or even on a majority of days during the year, there are patients lying in hallways or in emergency wards when they should be lying in beds in rooms in those hospitals, then with all due respect he does not have an appropriate picture of the situation. If he was given that information yesterday in Peterborough, then I am afraid he is lacking some information. That is all I can say.

Ms. Copps: The minister has recently introduced a program which is supposed to allow hospitals to generate revenues to catch up on some of these cash shortfalls. Does the minister not understand that for small-town hospitals, in places like Peterborough, Brockville, Timmins, etc., the ability to generate revenue from the initiative introduced in the business-oriented new development program is certainly not the same ability one would experience in a big city like Toronto? They cannot do things like charge for parking. They cannot generate revenue by charging for gourmet meals. The minister has to come up with a more comprehensive plan for financing all our hospitals across Ontario.

What does the minister suggest for communities like Peterborough which cannot take advantage of his so-called revenue generating schemes in the BOND program?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I said in my speech to the Ontario Hospital Association last week, I expect the major emphasis and advantage of the BOND program to be not on the revenue generating side but on the rationalization, or savings, side.

Quite frankly, that is one of the problems we face in Peterborough. In that community, two hospitals may now be encouraged for the first time to get quite serious about seeing if they can rationalize some of their facilities from the standpoint of saving some money and ending up with a budgetary surplus; not because they have generated more revenue out of parking lots but because they have found a way to run their hospitals more efficiently by working together a little better. I want to make it clear that I believe BOND will do more to save money than to generate money.

In that same speech I made to the OHA, I repeated what I have said on many occasions; that I believe BOND will impact differently on hospitals throughout this province, particularly the hospitals in smaller communities whose revenue-generating base potential, as the member quite properly indicated, is limited.

We are going to monitor the program as I believe it will need some adjustment and alteration at the conclusion of this year. I have invited the OHA, through its constituent hospitals, to meet with us after another few months of the program to review its current status, how it is impacting and to advise us on how we might better adjust to address those very concerns in the next fiscal year.

Mr. McClellan: I am a little disappointed that the minister has chosen to impute the most cynical kind of motive to the administration of St. Joseph's General Hospital and has combined that with an innuendo with respect to mismanagement. I do not intend to get into that kind of slanging match.

I ask the minister, is he aware that because Peterborough is increasingly a very attractive retirement community for many citizens across this province, it has an increasing proportion of retired citizens who place an additional cost upon the health care services in that community? Does the minister not understand that? Does he not understand that the problems at St. Joseph's are related as much to the demographics of the community as to anything else?

When does the minister intend to make up the deficit of extended care beds for that community, which has between 60 and 80 extended care beds for nursing homes, homes for the aged, etc.? Many of the problems in the hospitals are caused by the fact that there is a logjam and the hospitals are not able to discharge patients into nursing homes, homes for the aged or other appropriate extended care facilities. May we have a timetable as to when the minister intends to fill that need?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know the member would object very severely if we did not go through the process of consulting with the community through the district health council, which is currently discussing the need to do a long-term care study with the two hospitals in the area. I think that is the appropriate mechanism to follow.

To put it in some perspective: The member should remember that a DHC study in 1980 indicated a need for an additional 15 chronic and 30 extended care beds. Since that time they have in fact received a number of new beds, with 60 already open as opposed to the 65 that were asked for as recently as two years ago. So it looks as though we are fairly up to date on that. None the less the DHC is considering doing an extended care -- The member was not listening.

Mr. McClellan: It is not that I was not listening; I do not understand that nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right. Take a piece of paper and a pencil and write these figures down: 15 plus 50 is 65. That is the number that a council study in 1980 indicated was the necessary need for extended care beds in that year. Since that time, they have already opened 60 with more to come.

Mr. McClellan: We do have a Hansard service, in case the minister had not noticed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That would indicate five, as 65 minus 60 equals five. The member suggests there is a --

10:40 a.m.

Mr. Martel: You are a real whiz kid solving all the problems.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It's the new math.

Mr. McClellan: You have solved all the problems. You can sit down.

Mr. Martel: You are a virtual genius.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is like 34 minus 14 equals 20 seats.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the minister just address the question please. Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I just want to indicate that the number of beds needed in the area is reviewed regularly. It was done as recently as two years ago, and the beds were provided. None the less, we feel there may be a need for additional beds in the area, and, therefore, the DHC is discussing with the two hospitals the need for another extended care bed study. The member would not want us to circumvent the DHC, which I know he believes in. He would want us to go through that process. In terms of establishing the beds that may be needed in the next little while, the situation is in good hands and under control.

Before I sit down, lest the member suggests that it was unfair of me to allege or imply some mismanagement of the hospital, let me make it quite clear, as I have to the Speaker, that I am unhappy and think it is inappropriate for St. Joseph's General Hospital to serve these kinds of layoff and closure notices as a method of negotiating with the ministry. That is not how it should be negotiating with the ministry. The hospital may not like to hear me say that, but I am comfortable in saying it because we need co-operation and dialogue with them, not confrontation with them. It does not serve them, their patients or their citizens well.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have another question to the same minister. I am tempted to ask him what he did to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that caused her to capitulate after only 120 minutes, but I will not ask that.

Mr. Speaker: Is that the question?

Mr. McClellan: No, it is not.

My question is whether the Minister of Health has been given a copy of a Goldfarb study that was done for the Ontario Medical Association, a survey on attitudes to health care in Ontario? During the course of the study the learned Mr. Goldfarb discovered that 70 per cent of the sample, and presumably 70 per cent of the people of this province, are opposed to extra billing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the question whether I was aware of that? No, I am not a Goldfarb addict as the member might be.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Premier has a poll inside his Playboy magazine.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You know how hard Stuart tried to get Marty to do a poll for your party.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We couldn't afford it.

Mr. Breithaupt: He was booked for several years.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It's the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It's Friday.

Mr. McClellan: Since the minister has returned from Ottawa with his new pact with the federal government, which has capitulated entirely on the question of extra billing, and the government has managed to con, or whatever, the federal government into accepting a position of "control" over extra billing, contrary, obviously, to the wishes of a majority of the people of this province, can the minister explain to me, or, if he cannot explain now, could he table in the House a document that would explain how a policy of control of extra billing will deal with the situation in terms of last year's figures, which are the most recent I have?

These figures tell us that 60 per cent of anaesthetists are opted out of the Ontario health insurance plan, as are 38 per cent of orthopaedic surgeons; 46.2 per cent of plastic surgeons; 33.5 per cent of psychiatrists; 39.8 per cent of obstetricians and gynaecologists; 44.3 per cent of ophthalmologists; and 41 per cent of urologists. They are all opted out and all extra bill. How is the policy of control going to get those doctors back into the Ontario health insurance plan?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There were 11 ministers, including the representative of the territories, and the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare who agreed on that joint communiqué. Among that group of course is my good friend the Minister of Health and Social Development for Manitoba, Mr. Desjardins.

One of the reasons we were able to reach that agreement is we all agreed some of the numbers the member has cited by way of specialty are too high.

We agreed with Mme Bégin that we all shared totally her views with regard to universality and total access to the system, and that this meant one could not have too many opted-out physicians dominating any particular category, any particular specialty or any particular geographic part of the province.

As I have indicated publicly since I returned from that conference, I think that means the current numbers we see in some specialties and in some geographic areas of the province will not be satisfactory in meeting the goals that we as ministers of health seek to ensure are in place in our provinces.

That is obviously a matter I am going to have to take up with the Ontario Medical Association. I will be looking to it to deal with the variety of ways in which we may solve the geographic and specialty concentrations which are in some instances not satisfactory.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not feel it is a little unfair to opted-in physicians in this province to have to continue to bill the ministry and wait eight to 10 weeks, sometimes as much as 12 weeks, for money whereas opted-out physicians can bill the patient on the spot and put the money in the bank that very day?

Does that not strike the minister as being a little unfair to those physicians who are treating the people of this province fairly and in a way they wish to be treated according to the Goldfarb survey?

What specifically does the minister intend to do? Which opted-out physicians, which opted-out anaesthetists does he intend to tell that they have to opt back into the program? Is he going to flip a coin? Could he explain how he is going to reduce what he calls these unacceptable levels?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, should I report to their millstones in Ottawa that the honourable member supports ending opting out?

Mr. Wrye: Why don't you just answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will give him a couple of days to think which of the -- speaking of flipping a coin, the honourable member, the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps), and their leader can flip a coin and decide what their party's policy is going to be on the issue.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not want to put him on the spot. I don't want him to have to take a position.

What was the question? It was with regard to how we are going to decide which ones are -- I am sorry, it was billing.

I think if the member were a little more familiar with the system of OHIP's remuneration to its participating physicians, it would satisfy his concern entirely. What we try to do with OHIP is look at the historical record of billing for a particular physician and the expected pattern for the coming year.

Rather than relate each cheque to the physicians on a monthly basis for particular services, we try to average it out over the year so that the monthly cheque is roughly the same and so that they are fairly assured they are paid on a current basis, regardless of identifying one particular cheque from OHIP with one particular service. As the member knows, they get a single, lump sum cheque on a regular basis from the ministry.

While technically they are not remunerated for a service they provide today for several weeks or a month and a half, in real terms they are fairly current in their income versus the number of services they render today. It really is quite balanced and current in that sense.

Mr. McClellan: I was intrigued by part of the minister's answer to my question when he conceded the figures I had cited were too high. My recollection may be playing tricks on me, but I think this is the first time we have given figures on the percentages of opted-out specialists and a minister or a government spokesman has conceded there are problems.

I may be wrong, but I think this is the first time a minister has ever conceded that those figures are too high. On May 3, quoting the deathless prose of the minister, he said, "We believe that extra billing is part of what keeps this health care system in Ontario working well."

Which is it? Are the rates of opting out for specialists too high? Or, on the other hand, is this high opting-out rate what keeps the system working well in Ontario?

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Sorry, I was momentarily distracted as the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) was trying to sort out with the Health critic what their policy was. I was trying to eavesdrop on it and find out. I apologize.

I want to be quite clear, as I told the federal minister yesterday, that yes, I do believe some of those figures are too high. I obviously did not double check to see if the figures the member was quoting were specifically accurate but I feel very comfortable in saying that in certain --

Mr. McClellan: They are your figures, so they could be suspect.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If they are my figures they are fine and accurate.

As I indicated to the federal minister, I think one of the reasons that extra billing does not threaten the health care system is that the Ontario Medical Association has assured us that any patient of this province can get services rendered to him or her at opted-in rates.

I have also made quite clear, both publicly and privately, the fact that the system the OMA has developed, which is a toll-free number which any citizen can use to call the OMA and the OMA will follow up, is one which is --

Mr. McClellan: I know what you are going to say; Timbrell said it a hundred times.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Ross, I am not finished. I am going to say what you want me to say. Do not interrupt me now. I will change my mind if you interrupt me.

The system is one which is not widely known, not advertised enough nor used enough. Given that circumstance, the OMA is going to have to do better than it has done currently in terms of making that service known and available to the public in order to satisfy this minister and the federal minister that universality and accessibility is not threatened by extra billing.

May I go further -- I know the member will allow me to go further -- notwithstanding that service, the opted-out rates in certain specialties and in certain geographic areas of this province are too high. I think in order to protect extra billing and to satisfy the federal government and this minister --

Ms. Copps: Protect extra billing?

Mr. Martel: That says it all!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- to protect the right to extra bill, the medical profession is going to have to make sure that those figures are adjusted. Indeed, as the OMA knows very well, when the figure for opting out province-wide gets too high, then their right to opt out and to extra bill will be closely reviewed by this government. That is one of the reasons the figure is down to the lowest it has been in five years. I think we should remember that.

Ms. Copps: It makes me feel very confident that the Minister of Health has seen it in his mandate to protect extra billing. I am sure that --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please?

Ms. Copps: I have one preliminary question, and that is --

Mr. Speaker: No preliminary questions.

Ms. Copps: If the minister is studying lip reading, I think he is going to find himself in as bad a situation as when he actually did not know in advance that I had got my hair cut.

Mr. Speaker: That is an observation.

Ms. Copps: That is not a question, but I am going into my question now. He has been falling back a little bit on his surveillance.

DEATHS AT HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Ms. Copps: A question to the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: We are anticipating very shortly from the minister, the announcement of the other members of the Dubin inquiry into hospital procedures at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. I know the minister has received a telegram from the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario which points out that because patient care is the responsibility of many disciplines and, in particular, because the nurses' practice was recently called into question, the credibility of the committee headed by Mr. Justice Dubin to review practices at Sick Children's Hospital would be seriously undermined without the representation of the discipline of nursing.

I know the minister received a letter in advance of this telegram and I wonder whether he has taken the request of the RNAO and the nurses of Ontario into consideration?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by assuring my colleagues who would be wondering about me, that the earlier reference of the Health critic of the Liberal Party was simply that, lest she feels that my people are monitoring each and every one of her moves throughout the province, I did indicate to her the other day that I was surprised she had managed to get her hair cut without me knowing about it. I applaud her for having escaped the surveillance -- or proving that indeed there is no surveillance. None the less it was an excellent move on the member's part. Only one of the member's caucus agrees with me.

Mr. Speaker: To the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I say that I have received those communications. I happen to agree with those communications. One of the reasons I was not prepared to name the other appointments this morning is that we have decided to seek a fourth member for the Dubin investigation. That fourth member will be a representative of the nursing community.

[Applause]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is that all? Feel free.

I think it is appropriate that be done. In this case we are seeking to do what we sought to do with the other two appointments; that is, obtain people from outside the province with great expertise related to the health care profession. That is the same practice we will follow in trying to get someone representing, and knowledgeable in, the nursing profession. We have made certain contacts in that area.

The time commitment is going to be fairly substantial and because we are looking for persons who are outstanding in their particular areas of expertise, it requires that they seek permission and consent from their employers, etc., to devote the necessary amount of time required by this investigation. Therefore it may be another day or two before we have the necessary consents from these three other people to serve on the investigating team.

Ms. Copps: I congratulate the minister on following up so quickly on the request of the RNAO. I wonder whether he has had a chance to discuss with them another concern, which is if one relies primarily or predominately on investigators from outside Ontario, they may not be familiar with the procedures carried out in this province.

As the minister knows, the procedures carried out in an individual hospital with respect to the distribution of medication, etc., are really within the provincial domain and are a specific provincial responsibility. If he has had a chance to speak with the president of the RNAO he will know she is extremely concerned that people from outside, whether they be nurses, physicians, other health care professionals or non-professionals, may not be familiar with the procedures as they are supposed to exist in this province.

Taking that into consideration, does the minister not feel there are health professionals in Ontario who are detached enough from the situation at the Hospital for Sick Children to able to contribute, and contribute very adequately, to the investigation being carried out by Mr. Justice Dubin? If he does consider that there are health professionals in the province who have the capacity, why has he not included them on the team?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think it is important that the systems in place in this province, whether they are specific to the Sick Children's Hospital or general throughout the province, be subject to some objective external analysis and review. Of course, there will be no problem in getting all sorts of information and expertise with regard to the correctness of the procedures that are in place in this province. What I am really seeking is an adjudication and review of those procedures.

I think there will be all sorts of people who will be able to educate the investigating team with regard to whatever particular and unique aspects of the Ontario system are involved, and given the fact that information will all be available to the team, I think it will reassure the citizens of this province that the team which ultimately makes an assessment and evaluation is one that will be objective.

I am sure the RNAO and others will come forward and review the procedures and make our team familiar enough with our procedures. Some of our appointees will be familiar with the Ontario procedures upon their appointment.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Listen to what I am saying: They will be people who are familiar with the Ontario system although they are not working in it. I think the member will find that the appointments are really quite extraordinary and satisfactory, I really do.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Can the minister give an answer that is less than three or five minutes long? Is it possible for him to say something clearly and give a short answer? He is really abusing the time here. That answer could have been given in 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Surely, as I have pointed out before, members have a right to expect not only to ask questions in this chamber but indeed to listen to the answers that are provided.

11 a.m.

ENERGY RATES

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy relative to the proposal by the Consumers' Gas Co. to increase its rates. I am sure the minister will recognize that in addition to a substantial general increase to domestic consumers, the company is proposing that the minimum home heating gas bill be increased by something like three times the present amount. They are also proposing a dramatic increase in rates for those who install heat pumps or otherwise cut down on home heating gas consumption.

Will the minister now give the House the assurance that he will intervene firmly with Consumers' Gas Co. and the Ontario Energy Board and state clearly it is government policy not to permit home owners to be penalized because they use less gas?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy would feel it quite improper to intervene at this stage. The article to which the honourable member refers makes it quite clear that the proposal is before the Ontario Energy Board. The hearing has been advertised. I am sure all sorts of interventions are now filed. I think it would be quite proper to allow the Ontario Energy Board to hear the application and also the interveners who have indicated their intentions to appear before the board as part of that hearing.

Mr. Swart: Does the minister not realize that the proposal by Consumers' Gas Co., which would be followed by the other gas companies if it is allowed, will increase the rates substantially in the winter? This will adversely affect senior citizens who need more heat, and adversely affect the people in northern Ontario who use more gas in the winter.

Surely he must also be aware of the tremendous profit increase the gas company had last year, from $90 million to $117 million, and that did not include the tremendous increase it got in rates this last February. Will the minister give this House the assurance now that he or his government will appear at that hearing, that he will condemn a policy which socks it to the people in the winter, particularly in the north where consumption is higher, which creates unreasonable profits at the expense of the consumer, and which will destroy the principles of conservation and the off-oil program of the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member knows the procedures that are to be followed. I repeat, the matter is now in the form of an application before the Ontario Energy Board. I would remind the member -- and I assume he is referring to the article that appeared this morning dealing with the application of Consumers' Gas -- that Consumers' Gas does not have a franchise in the north.

Mr. Swart: I said the other companies would follow.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If the member is talking about that particular matter, we have an application before the Ontario Energy Board. I think the public has every confidence in that board as an impartial body reviewing that particular application. As I say, they have advertised it.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, various levels of government have encouraged people on an ongoing basis to get off oil and get on to cheaper forms of energy, particularly natural gas in this case. Does not the minister agree, as an individual MPP, it is wrong that this company should be attempting to get considerably more money in various ways from the public of this province who were encouraged by governments to switch to gas?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, this minister and this government is quite committed to the whole concept of off-oil and the contribution which it will make to crude oil self-sufficiency for the country. I do not think there is any question about that as far as government policy is concerned in that regard, and government commitment to the whole concept of conservation.

In responding to the honourable member and the member for Welland-Thorold, I simply have to remind them that, as the author of the article in this morning's paper has been careful to point out, this matter is now before the board. I think it would be improper for this minister to comment on a matter that is before the Ontario Energy Board at this time.

SUNDAY OPENINGS

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. On April 23, I brought to the attention of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) in this House, the fact that a significant number of Metro Toronto business concerns appeared to be openly conducting business on Sundays in violation of the Retail Business Holidays Act, recognizing the light fines that have been imposed to date on violators.

Because of my interest in this matter, the minister will recall he had advised me on April 27 that all charges under the act in the judicial district of York would be heard by a provincial court judge on Wednesday, April 28, and that the prosecuting crown attorney would maintain a consistent and vigorous representation as to the quantum of fines to be imposed upon conviction.

Has the minister as yet received word on the findings of the court? If so, did the results of those trials indicate that the judiciary has been appropriately responsive to these concerns while meting out justice in these cases?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I will have to answer this in general terms because I am not familiar with the details of the specific prosecutions to which the honourable member has just referred.

I am not happy or satisfied with the level of penalties that has been imposed on some of the people who have been found guilty of breaching this legislation. We have been urging our crown attorneys, as has been mentioned, to press for more significant fines. There is no question that some of the fines that have been imposed do not represent much of a deterrent.

Mr. Williams: Is the minister aware of the article in Wednesday's Toronto Star about Coles Book Stores Ltd. losing its appeal against a conviction for doing business on Sunday wherein Judge Kane of the appeal court reduced the original fine of $2,500 to $200?

Is he aware that the judge's purported reason for reducing the fine was that since Coles' gross profit on the five Sundays they stayed open in November 1981 was $200, not $2,500, the fine should be only $200?

Does the minister not feel that this fine- geared-to-profit formula applied by the judiciary undermines public respect for this law and raises a serious doubt in the public's mind as to the need to obey this law?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I was very disappointed with Judge Kane's decision in that respect. I do not agree with it, and I would hope that will not be representative or indicative of the approach of the courts generally.

TEACHER-BOARD NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. Now that she has received representations on a continuing basis from various groups that would be directly or indirectly affected by any proposed changes in legislation which would be designed to change the teacher-board negotiations process in Metropolitan Toronto, including the discussion within her cabinet, would she assure the House that she is prepared to abandon any plans she had to introduce legislation to bring about compulsory joint bargaining by panel and compulsory regional negotiations by panel in Metropolitan Toronto?

Would she not agree, as the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) often says, that if one were to introduce such legislation one would really be fixing something that is not broken?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not agree, nor would I agree not to do what the honourable member suggests I should not do.

Mr. Bradley: Would the minister feel that by introducing this legislation she is going to allow the following problems to be addressed: Protecting the rights of an employing board and its teachers to negotiate something that is unique to the needs of that education system; or sheltering the priorities of a small branch affiliate or a single small board from the overwhelming needs of a larger entity; or another issue that arises from this, the sensitivity of the large Metropolitan school boards to local needs when its members are not directly elected by the people who would be affected by these decisions?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: All of those matters have been addressed acutely and sensitively.

11:10a.m.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order:

Because the Minister of Energy gave no indication whatsoever that he objected in any way or would take any action to intervene in the proposed unreasonable increases by the Consumers' Gas Co., I will give the appropriate notice just a little later on that we will have a late show on Tuesday night on this matter.

Mr. Ruston: After mine.

Mr. Speaker: There will be two; you are right.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Miss Stephenson moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Welch, first reading of Bill 127, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the major purpose of this bill is to give support to the underlying principle of the two-tier form of educational governance in Metropolitan Toronto. That principle is that there should be a comparable level of educational service and comparable access to resources through municipal taxes across the Metro area. The bill also contains provisions to increase the level of accountability of the boards concerned and to bring certain practices into line with what is provided in other legislation.

Provision is made in the bill to require the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and the six boards of education to bargain jointly with their elementary and secondary teachers respectively on salaries and financial benefits for teachers and on the method by which the number of teachers to be employed by a board is determined. Negotiations will continue to be carried out locally on matters of local concern. It will also be possible for a board to employ additional teachers beyond the number determined by the jointly negotiated staff-allocation formula, but the costs attributable to the employment of such teachers could not exceed the amount that can be realized from the discretionary tax levy.

Provision is made for the Metropolitan Toronto School Board to be in a position to credit to the taxpayers of a board of education that portion of any surplus realized by the board which was raised by local taxation in that area municipality, and to require that part or all of a deficit incurred by a board of education be raised by local taxes in the area municipality concerned.

Still in the financial sphere, it is proposed that the basis of apportionment of the education requirement in the Metro area be altered to bring it into line with the practice in other school jurisdictions. The change is that the amount of commercial, industrial and business assessment which is taken into account is increased by dividing the amount in each municipality by 0.85. The bill also contains a proposal that the discretionary levy which may be raised by an area board of education be limited to one mill at both elementary and secondary levels and that any deficit charged back to a board be included within that limit.

In the area of housekeeping and complementary amendments, there is a provision to make the term of office of trustees of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board the same as that for other trustees; a provision to allow alternate members of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board to be more than mere observers at meetings of the board and its committees without altering voting strength; a provision to update the size of a quorum at meetings of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, and a provision to bring the method of determining trustee remuneration for that school board into line with that which has been proposed in Bill 46, the Education Amendment Act, 1982.

I believe the major provisions of this bill constitute significant improvements to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act and I would urge all honourable members to support them.

CITY OF THUNDER BAY ACT

Mr. Mitchell moved, on behalf of Mr. Hennessy, seconded by Mr. Pollock, first reading of Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the City of Thunder Bay.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 13, 113, 139 and 140 and the interim answers to questions 149 and 171 on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, time does fly quickly. It is hard to believe five months have gone by since we last did an examination of my ministry's estimates, but that is the case.

Before I get into my formal remarks concerning the expenditure estimates for the ministry, I would like to bring to the attention of honourable members, and particularly the critics for the Ministry of Northern Affairs, a major change in the staff of my ministry. As many will recall, Art Herridge was deputy minister for two years. He has served this government exceptionally well in a number of major positions in the civil service of this province. He served 35 years and retired on December 31, 1981.

I am pleased to say he was replaced by a very able young man from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications in the person of David Hobbs. Mr. Hobbs is sitting under the Speaker's gallery. We are looking forward to having David with us for a long period of time. He has the correct northern attitude, the spirit that will --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What is the correct northern attitude?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have to remind you there is a correct northern attitude. David has that spirit, which augurs well.

Mr. Stokes: Even the Minister of Education is acquiring some of that spirit.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We won't touch on that subject for a moment.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I thought it was just sensitivity. I did not think there was anything very correct about it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Nevertheless it is a pleasure to have David with us. That is the point I wanted to make at the opening of my remarks.

It has been five months since I last presented spending estimates for the Ministry of Northern Affairs. During that time, the ministry has continued to pursue its mandate of preparing, recommending and co-ordinating government plans, policies and programs for northern Ontario I am pleased to present to this general government committee estimates totalling $179,088,400 for the 1982-83 period. These are funds that will enable the ministry to continue to carry out a wide range of activities and contribute successfully to the overall economic and social development of northern Ontario.

11:20 a.m.

There is no doubt we are going through a difficult time as far as the economy of the north is concerned. There have been closures and numerous layoffs. A slump in North American and world market demand for our lumber, pulp and paper, and mineral products is only worsened by a deliberate federal monetary policy that increases unemployment and reduces domestic demand.

I am confident that many of these problems are short term in nature. Nevertheless, they are real and are having an impact on a larger number of people. It is for this reason that the government recently announced several short- term job creation programs of particular benefit to northern Ontario.

These include the accelerated capital projects announced in the recent budget which will create about 600 jobs and add $19.2 million to this year's northern roads budget. The Ministry of Natural Resources, with the federal government, is creating jobs for laid-off forest workers, most of them in the north, through the accelerated forest improvement program. A similar program was also announced in the budget that will provide up to 6,000 jobs for Ontario's mining workers and laid-off employees in other sectors.

These are programs that provide useful jobs at a time when they are very badly needed. As I have said, they will be of particular benefit to the north in most cases and will provide a substantial cushion against the current economic downturn.

For the longer term, I continue to be an optimist about the economic prospects for northern Ontario, and I am not alone. There are real expressions of confidence in northern Ontario's economic prospects and investments in the future of our region on the part of the private sector. A recent article in Northern Ontario Business described $6 billion in capital investment in various northern Ontario projects. I will see that a copy of that paper is delivered to both opposition critics because it is a well-written paper.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Could I have one as well?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Reid, I will make sure you have one too. I think it is of real interest to those of us who are interested in northern Ontario.

The major projects described in the article include the expansion of Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie; the Detour Lake project northeast of Cochrane, access for which is supported by this ministry; the extensive modernization taking place in our province's pulp and paper mills, and the planned expansion of Denison Mines and Rio Algom in Elliot Lake. These are just the big projects.

Mr. Stokes: All in northeastern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The pulp and paper expansions are right across the northwest. Come to Dryden or Kenora and see what is going on there.

The confidence of these companies is based on their long-term perspective of our economic strength and resilience. This ministry and this government have always shared that confidence and will continue to evolve the type of policies and economic strategies that will retain and foster the confidence of the private sector in Ontario's north.

The north is blessed with abundant natural resources. These resources will always be the bedrock on which its economic strength rests. Our job is to make maximum and wisest use of these resources and to help distribute the benefits they create by increasing the north's share of the value added in terms of supplying services and products.

In past estimates, we have heard talk of the need for a sweeping industrial strategy for the north. Some honourable members seem to feel there is a magic wand one can wave and produce instant growth in every sector throughout the north. That is not very realistic. Instead of some grand, academic scheme, I think far more can be achieved by continuing to pursue a range of pragmatic smaller strategies tailored to the strengths and opportunities of specific regions and communities in the north as they really exist.

Basic among these is the Ministry of Northern Affairs' ongoing effort to identify northern economic needs and opportunities. We then balance those needs and opportunities against existing government programs to review and monitor their effectiveness. This enables us to establish clearly defined positions and viewpoints on economic priorities for the north and then research or pursue specific local or sectoral economic opportunities.

As members know, the ministry's advocacy and co-ordinating role on behalf of northern Ontario allows us to bring about changes at the policy and planning level, without necessarily infusing large amounts of funding ourselves. In other areas, we take a more direct role in providing funding for the programs that allow for the type of private sector development I described a moment ago.

Fundamental among these are our infrastructure programs. Over the five years of the ministry's existence, we have pursued a vigorous policy of improving the north's transportation system and sewer and water facilities to facilitate resource development and processing and also allow for economic diversification at the community level.

In the area of transportation this year, we will spend over $100 million on northern roads. These include our major highways, secondary and tertiary roads as well as resource access roads, such as the one going into Detour Lake.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, maybe we will do something around Foleyet too.

This important route, for which $16,480,000 has been earmarked in this year's estimates, will provide access to the site of the largest gold mine to open in North America in many years. The mine will employ in the area of 500 people initially. Their accommodation requirements will greatly benefit the nearby communities of Cochrane, Timmins, Iroquois Falls and Smooth Rock Falls.

Other resource access roads we fund come under the forest management agreement. These are roads that are providing access to mature and overmature timber to allow for intelligent harvesting of our valuable forest resources.

Mr. Laughren: This is an overmature minister.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh, just wait. This is a very young ministry. The minister might be a little overmature, but the ministry is not.

The remote airport program is another component in our transportation portfolio. This year will see the completion of construction of the airport at Cat Lake. I believe that is in the member for Nipigon's riding. No, it is in my riding. It is in the Kenora riding.

Mr. Stokes: Cat Lake is right on the boundary.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Right on the boundary, yes.

Mr. Stokes: There are registered Indians from my constituency living in yours.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Right. That will go forward this year, and that will be one of the last of the 20 such airports provided for under phase 1 of our program.

Under phase 2 of the program, beginning this year, we will be looking at upgrading a number of existing airports, lengthening runways and proceeding with plans to build facilities in new communities.

The rail and ferry services of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission come under my ministry's purview. This year, $16,736,000 has been budgeted for the passenger services provided by these elements of the ONTC system. This amount includes the recent refitting of the Chi-Cheemaun ferry, which will allow for the passage of an extra 100 cars a day during the busy summer schedule.

We had the opportunity of viewing that particular improvement just last week in the company of my colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) and the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague), who took the trip from South Baymouth to Tobermory. The Chi-Cheemaun is providing an excellent service and with this new facility will add more passengers and more cars.

Mr. Laughren: Don't mumble. We are here to help you.

Mr. Stokes: We can't understand you.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Is that right? Turn it up a little louder. They say it is good back here.

Anyway, on the subject of rail service, I want to remind the members that this ministry, along with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, continues to monitor with a great deal of concern the effects of the federal government's cutbacks on Via Rail service, which forms an integral part of the northern transportation system.

We intend to do our utmost to maintain adequate levels of passenger rail service in northern Ontario and we will be putting forward proposals to the federal government for improved services where we see the need.

In addition, we are working with the Ministry of Natural Resources on an idea to build future forest access roads in such a way that they will also provide a link for the 20 or more population centres hardest hit by the reduction in rail service. In other words, we intend to take an established transportation program designed to meet the needs of one group and adapt it to also include the needs of another.

11:30 a.m.

NorOntair, also part of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, continues to provide an exceptional level of air service to 21 communities across northern Ontario. Since 1977, tourist and personal travel on norOntair has increased to 30 per cent of the total from 20 per cent, and we are constantly reviewing the network for future changes and additions. Over the next year, we will be planning for the introduction of the Dash-S aircraft, which will further improve air services in the north.

In another infrastructure area, sewer and water projects play a fundamental role in economic development at the regional and community levels. These are not glamorous projects, but they go a long way towards attracting and retaining investment in our northern communities.

This year will see the start of construction on the Sault Ste. Marie water and sewer extension. I was in Sault Ste. Marie last week to sign a $70-million, federal-provincial-municipal agreement that will provide that city with the infrastructure it requires to allow for the planned expansion of Algoma Steel and related commercial and residential development.

Some other infrastructure projects budgeted for this year include water supply for the community of White River and services for the North Bay and Valley East industrial parks.

Mr. Laughren: Are there any others?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes. There are two others we will talk about during the course of the examination of these estimates.

Mr. Laughren: How about Gaston's?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, not Gaston's. The ministry has always placed a high priority on municipal infrastructure projects related to economic development. In single-resource communities they provide an opportunity for diversification; in larger municipalities they allow for needed industrial expansion.

At the community level our aim is to help municipalities act for themselves in improving their economic prospects and circumstances. We do this through a process of direct, continuing contact with municipal leaders and regional municipal organizations, such as the municipal advisory committee we fund, and by offering financial incentives and advice to municipalities. We will provide assistance of this sort to Armstrong, Wawa, Gore Bay, Ignace, Nipigon and other communities during this fiscal year.

I do not need to remind members of the vital importance the mineral sector plays in the economy of the north and the province as a whole. We in the Ministry of Northern Affairs play our role through continuing support for community-based geological mapping and exploration. Beardmore, Geraldton, Atikokan and Kirkland Lake are among the communities that will benefit from this program this fiscal year.

Although most communities in the north rely directly or indirectly on one of our two major resources, forests and minerals, there are other sectors that may receive less attention now but are essential elements of northern Ontario.

Farming in the north has great potential, and it will be a thrust of my ministry to continue with our colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to seek means of expanding and improving the agricultural sector in the north. One way we are already doing this is through the northern Ontario rural development agreement, under which more than 500 northern Ontario farmers have qualified for incentive grants to improve their farming operations.

We also hope to respond positively to a number of recommendations contained in the northern Ontario agricultural marketing study funded by this ministry. I will be meeting with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) to begin plans for the production of a marketing handbook as a measure to promote the growth of northern Ontario's agricultural sector.

Mr. Laughren: How about a food terminal for Timmins?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, not quite a food terminal, but something -- maybe a processing plant or a packaging plant. But those are the things we are thinking about.

Tourism is another strong sector in the north's economy. Visitors to northern Ontario spent more than $1.25 billion last year, and tourism can be expected to increase significantly as a major contributor to the north's economy.

The Ministry of Northern Affairs is involved in tourism on several fronts through the northern Ontario rural development agreement: at the individual level, at Ontario North Now here in Toronto and through support for specific regional attractions, such as Kakabeka Falls and Ouimet Canyon, the new Fort Frances tourist information centre and activities within the James Bay frontier travel region.

This year, too, we are providing funding for the development of a unique co-operative tourist venture in Vermilion Bay. Five communities along the Highway 105 corridor have got together to upgrade the Vermilion Bay stockade and turn it into a tourist information centre. Naturally, my ministry was pleased to support this regional initiative for tourist information facilities which will be a boon to the whole area.

Another resource area that holds great potential for the development in the north is alternative energy supplies. Last year I told the House about the work being done by my ministry with the ministries of Energy and Natural Resources on establishing the extent of the north's vast peat resources. Since then I have had occasion to talk to several groups, including a delegation from Finland, about developing the untapped wealth of peat that covers most of the north.

We are also continuing to investigate, with the Ministry of Energy, the extent of the vast lignite reserves in the Onakawana area for their possible development.

Mr. Stokes: It is dead.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, we are looking at it. We are trying to identify a larger body of lignite.

Mr. Stokes: You will lose your credibility if you try to recycle that again, and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We are working on it.

On a smaller scale, we have funded solar power, waste heat conversion and small-scale hydroelectric projects in various parts of the north. We will continue to explore other sources of alternative energy including, this year, the feasibility of cogeneration units that can run on waste organic matter to produce cheap electricity.

Economic development and social development go hand in hand. My ministry recognizes this fact in its social development strategies at the regional and community levels. In our role as co-ordinator of government policy for the north, we facilitate the efforts of other ministries in identifying and responding to gaps in social services. Nowhere is this effort carried out with more vigour than in the field of northern health care.

I was very glad to see that the members of the Liberal task force on health care took such an interest in our northern health care system; there remain many challenges to be met in the delivery of health care in the north. But I was a little sorry that the task force had so little to say about the positive strides made in northern Ontario in the past few years towards correcting some of these traditional deficiencies.

I noted the comments on the shortage of specialists in the north. I did not see any mention of the successful specialist incentive grants program operated by the Ministry of Health with Northern Affairs that is attracting increasing numbers of these specialists to the north.

Mr. Laughren: Don't say "increasing numbers." Tell us how many.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I will tell you; I will give you those numbers.

Nor was there mention of the increasing sophistication of some of our northern hospitals or of the air ambulance system, which places most residents of the north within one hour of treatment at a major hospital.

The task force might have noted too that a change in Ontario health insurance plan regulations, pressed for by the Ministry of Northern Affairs, now allows OHIP coverage for authorized hospital-to-hospital transfers by air ambulance. It also might have noted that the elderly in northern Ontario are receiving a high priority from cabinet.

There is no question that in this province, this country and indeed the industrialized west, the costs of health care are rising dramatically and demands on the system are increasing yearly. In many parts of northern Ontario these factors are compounded by the problems of distance and isolation and the difficulty in attracting health care specialists.

Frankly, we still have a lot of catching up to do in our northern health care programs. We are meeting almost constantly with our colleagues at the Ministry of Health to review such concerns as the need for northern referral centres, transportation assistance for patients travelling south regularly for specialized treatment and for better and more medical technology for our northern hospitals.

But, though there is work to be done, we should take pride in the accomplishments we have already made towards attaining a higher level of practical self-sufficiency in northern health care. The most recent of these is our long-term care capital assistance program announced in the recent throne speech. With our colleagues at the Ministry of Health, we have put together a program that is simple and parochial in the best sense. Funding for extended hospital facilities to house up to 20 beds for long-term care of elderly patients will allow many of our northern elderly to get the care they need right in their own communities.

This program continues a thrust for better care for our elderly that began with our support three years ago for the Dryden minimal care home and a smaller, similar facility at Terrace Bay.

11:40 a.m.

The air ambulance network now serving the north out of Sudbury, Timmins, Thunder Bay and Sioux Lookout is a development I welcomed gladly at the time, and I have had no reason to temper my enthusiasm. We have heard criticism of the costs of this program. Let me say that the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) and I decided at the outset that the north deserved a first-rate air ambulance system, and a first-rate system is what we got. I do not know how one can put a price tag on saving lives, but in their first year of service the air ambulances have saved lives, and they have brought quick attention to serious injuries. After a year in service, the air ambulance program is currently under review to evaluate its performance in the light of possible changes and improvements.

I should remind members that programs such as the air ambulance system, our long-term-care assistance program for the elderly or the infrastructure projects for northern communities are the products of the very successful way the government has chosen to deal with northern issues: with a geographically based Ministry of Northern Affairs working co-operatively with ministries having specific line and sectoral responsibilities.

As a member of cabinet, of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development and of all three policy fields, I work closely with my colleagues in this government to help give direction for the progress and development we all desire for northern Ontario. The ministry could not accomplish what it does without the support and interest it finds in every other ministry in the Ontario government.

Mr. Laughren: Do you think they say the same thing about the Ministry of Northern Affairs?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think they do.

Mr. Stokes: Like hydro rates for the north.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We are working on that too.

By the same token, the strength of the Ministry of Northern Affairs is based on the fact that it draws on the knowledge and experience of the two thirds of our staff who are located in the north and on the close working relationships we have with the municipal, industrial and organizational leaders with whom we work on a year-round basis to determine northern needs and priorities.

An excellent example I can give of this process is our local services board program, enacted in this House three years ago. To date, 21 communities have formed boards to provide themselves with such basic services as fire protection, water supply, sewers, garbage collection, street lighting and recreational facilities.

Mr. Laughren: Remember which was the first one?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes. Hudson; the good old town of Hudson.

Applications for nine more boards are currently under review and eight more communities have expressed interest in forming local services boards. The point is that the legislation empowering unorganized communities to form self-help boards to raise funds for these services, funds that we match, was developed in the north in close co-operation with the very communities it was meant to serve. This is how the ministry works in determining its future programs and policies.

Without taking much more time, I would like to provide an update for the members on a couple of programs that have attracted interest over the past year.

Our TVOntario extension program has received more than 70 applications since we announced it last November. Forty-four of these have been budgeted for the installation of low-power rebroadcast equipment during this fiscal year. The first of these will be installed this summer.

Finally, I know the members will want to hear about the progress at Minaki Lodge.

Mr. T. P. Reid: This will be a short statement.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I just could not leave this out.

Mr. Stokes: Let us read Hansard from last fall.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Will you and Bill Charlton resign if it is not open next summer?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes. As a side issue, I want to make it very clear that Minaki Lodge will be completed this year. I think I said that last year, but obviously one does not open a major tourist or recreational convention centre at the end of a tourist season. It will be completed in September or October of this year. The honourable member certainly would not want us to open up the facility at that time. So we are spending our time training the local people, getting them involved, creating employment --

Mr. Laughren: What is the total cost?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is $20 million.

I must say there is no unemployment in the town of Minaki this summer, nor has there been for some time. That happy situation will spread to a wider region when the lodge opens on schedule next summer.

We are talking to several large organizations about convention bookings already. I want to urge all those members who have not visited Minaki Lodge to use their travel allowance to go up and see the lodge for themselves this summer. It is open to everyone.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Why not have a northern tour under the auspices of the Ministry of Northern Affairs?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You have money in your budget. You can take a trip up there.

What I have touched on this morning is only a summary of the major priorities and highlights of the ministry's 1982-83 activities. There is a broad range of programs and projects within our mandate that I look forward to discussing with members during the examination of these estimates in the next few days.

Mr. Chairman: I know this is highly out of the ordinary for the Chairman of the committees of the whole House, but I have checked with the appropriate critics of the other two parties and they have allowed me the opportunity to say one or two words on concerns of mine about the ministry. I feel very concerned about this.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Complimentary, I am sure.

Mr. Chairman: In a way they are, and in a way they are not. I listened very closely to your remarks, especially those about Minaki Lodge and about visiting it. As you well know, in the past few months I have written to you about the possibility of members of the Legislature from southern Ontario visiting the north.

Mr. Stokes: And got no reply.

Mr. Chairman: No. I got a reply that an investigation would take place of the possibility of seven southern Ontario members visiting northern Ontario. The question is, why we should do that? As a member for some six years, I want to say that, outside of some meagre experiences in the north, working in Wawa one summer during the sittings of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs -- the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) will remember our February trip to Atikokan -- I have not had the wonderful opportunity of getting a feel for the north.

More often than not when I hear honourable members from all parties talk about the north, about peat, about Sudbury and the nickel mining problems in that area, about Cochrane North, or about the possibilities for the future in northern Ontario, I am left with a large blank, because I have not had the experience of travelling extensively in northern Ontario to find out what some of the problems of that area are: the transportation problems and the cost of commodities such as gasoline.

I remember that the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) once talked about the cost of the gasoline being shipped to Summer Beaver. I had no idea what all that meant. I think it is important for me to have the opportunity to visit some of these areas because --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Is this a paid commercial?

Mr. Chairman: No, it is not a paid commercial. As one of 125 elected members of the board of directors, as it were, for all of the province, I feel very strongly that we should all have some kind of appreciation.

In February, when I visited London, England, I had the opportunity to speak to some members of Parliament in the House of Commons. I was flabbergasted to think, as I told them, that some of our members from northern Ontario have ridings larger than England itself. Our province is vast and we have wonderful opportunities here in northern Ontario, and we should become familiar with them.

I am not saying that every year there should be a great boondoggle up to northern Ontario; I am saying that at least every term --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Every second year.

Mr. Chairman: No, every term. Every three to four years, members who are interested should have the opportunity of taking some kind of trip, and all members from all parties should submit to the ministry one or two areas of interest in their ridings, a problem area and a growth area, so we would have a better feel for the north and an opportunity to realize what is taking place there.

I know that this summer the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is taking a trip to the Northwest Territories. That is a vast area; I think they are dividing up into three groups and visiting different sections of the north. Possibly a plan of that nature could be envisioned.

I hope sincerely that you will take those considerations under advisement with your staff to see what the possibilities would be. I might be way off base; maybe no one is interested in bothering to go up there. But I have a great curiosity. I think our future lies in the north. A lot is happening, and I do hope you will keep it in mind.

I thank all members for this opportunity. I know it is totally out of the ordinary, but I wanted to get my two cents' worth in.

Mr. Laughren: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman: I would like to support what you have said, because I think every member of the Legislature should have a chance to visit his or her $25-million investment in Minaki Lodge. I also think we should all see the only renewable resource come out of the ground, in the form of lignite that has been recycled already without having come out of the ground by the Minister of Northern Affairs.

11:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to your remarks. I appreciate your sincere interest in northern Ontario. I am a little taken aback to think you have been here six years and have not seen fit to use some of your legislative allowance which will provide the necessary dollars for you to go to northern Ontario. In fact, I would be most pleased to set up an itinerary for you.

Mr. Chairman: I will take you up on it. What happens is that a member winds up so concerned with his own riding, in my case going back and forth to Durham East every day, that one just does not think, "This weekend I am going to make a trip to Wawa." There has to be some kind of program or plan so one can see various aspects of it. That would be great.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is why I mentioned Minaki Lodge and my desire to see more members in northern Ontario. There is an allowance for them to get up there. They are always anxious to go to England, Florida or California on committee trips, but it seems that northern Ontario is always left out.

We are looking seriously at a number of different proposals with regard to a tour to northern Ontario. I do not know whether we are going into the riding of Nickel Belt. We might visit the little town of Foleyet; that will be in the new riding of Cochrane South.

Mr. Laughren: How about going to Winisk?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Winisk? Yes, we might even go there.

I want to make a point. I was involved in the last members' tour we had to northern Ontario several years ago. It was a bitter disappointment; it really was. We laid on what we thought was a fantastic tour. There was a combination of transportation modes: train, bus and airplane. We solicited the members of the Legislature and got a firm commitment from more than 80 members who would be on the trip. We went to the expense of planning for 80 members, and only 30 showed up for that week-long trip. The cost was astronomical. I was bitterly disappointed.

It may well be that with this growing interest, with so many great things happening in the north and with the desire of these members to go and see that fabulous development at Minaki, we can pull something together.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman, this is the first opportunity I have had to get into the estimates. Of course, we had the supplementary estimates not long ago. Many of the things I am going to say today from an opposition member's viewpoint are not necessarily new. The theme of recycling was alluded to a few moments ago. I will be recycling a lot of our pet peeves as we see things not being done and as we see things that should be acted upon.

I wish to say a brief word in recognition of my predecessor in the job of critic of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid), a gentleman who has been in this Legislature since 1967 and who has served the north very well. He has moved on to bigger and better things, and in his moving on has left for me a considerable wealth of information and, on occasion, good, sound advice. I want to see recognition of the fine job he has done over the years on the record.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with you in what you suggested to the minister. I have not written to the minister, but I have spoken to him directly on this theme. It is worth noting, because in his response the minister suggested we might use our travel allowances. There may be some who are not familiar with the Legislature. We have a few people in the gallery. I even suspect we have a few people from Norfolk county here this morning if I am observant at all.

At any rate, for those people who are not familiar with it, we now have an allowance of some $1,100 to travel from Toronto to places other than our own riding. That allowance used to be $600 and then $800. It certainly was not very much, because if you fly from here to Thunder Bay, for example, and return, it is almost half of what we used to have; so two trips would wipe you out.

Beyond that, of course, there is the accommodation problem. If you stay for any length of time, you are looking at X hundred dollars that have to be paid, generally out of your own pocket. That is not a claimable allowance. So there is a money problem for those members who want to travel to the north more often than a couple of times.

I am sure the request that the allowance be changed upwardly again is going to come back to the cabinet. I ask the minister to be very considerate when he hears another request for an increase in that allowance, because generally it is used well. I do not see it being abused. As a matter of fact, there are some people who do not even claim that money. I submit that for those who do want to travel, if a request for an increase in that allowance comes, they should give it every consideration because it would be for a good purpose.

In so far as the estimates are concerned, my comments are going to be in point form. I have a handful of concerns: northern development, the forest industry, one-industry communities, native communities, economics, travel and health care.

With the indulgence of the members of the committee and you, Mr. Chairman, I will begin these remarks by pointing out that the recent provincial budget did not address in any great way the economic problems facing northern Ontario. The only commitments the government made to northern residents were to increase their vehicle registration fees by 140 per cent and to create some Band-Aid, make-work projects for laid-off workers. This is the sum total of the government's initiatives for northern Ontario.

This is not surprising, however, coming from a government that has consistently raped the north of its resources and has put so little back into the north. I can recall the words of a former Conservative Treasurer during the 1977 election campaign when he went north to Sudbury and told the people that there would be no major industrial development in northern Ontario for decades.

We are still awaiting the government's fulfilment of its commitment, as stated in its infamous Brampton charter, to "balance growth and development in the north so as to make prosperity, social and cultural advancement equally available to the citizens of northern Ontario."

The truth of the matter is that this government has never made an honest attempt to make northern Ontario more than a provider of resources. The north is beset by a host of problems, including resource exploitation, an unstable subsistence economy, high unemployment, unplanned settlements, inadequate levels of social programs and environmental problems.

Lack of government initiatives for industrial and economic development means that the north will still sit stagnant. Northerners are living under constant fear that the major employers will close down, and yet this government has few meaningful financial programs to offer them.

The economic situation in the north is further aggravated by the government's failure to have raw materials, which are cut or mined in the north, processed locally. Although the Ontario forest industry is overwhelmingly dependent upon northern resources, processing and manufacturing is heavily concentrated in southern Ontario; in fact, some 60 per cent of timber-associated manufacturing is located elsewhere, although 90 per cent of merchantable timber is in the north.

12 noon

The lack of an adequate supply of replacement parts used in the mining industry is another problem. Most mining equipment parts are made outside Canada, although these could easily be manufactured locally. In 1980, Canada's trade deficit in drilling and mining machinery was approximately $1.5 billion, a fivefold increase over 1970. Ontario's 1979 deficit was $250 million. If these parts had been replaced from domestic sources, approximately 3,500 jobs would have been created.

In addition, Ontario law says that metals mined in the province must be refined completely in Canada, yet cabinet has passed hundreds of exemptions to this law -- in fact, 65 exemptions since 1974 alone -- allowing millions of pounds of semi-precious metals to go out of this country and provide processing jobs elsewhere. For all intents and practical purposes, then, this law is nonexistent.

Of the metallic minerals mined in Ontario, about 30 per cent of the zinc, 33 per cent of the nickel, 10 per cent of the copper, 100 per cent of the platinum group metals, 14 per cent of the silver, 38 per cent of the lead, 17 per cent of the iron ore, 11 per cent of the cadmium and 55 per cent of the cobalt are processes outside Canada.

This government has done nothing to address the problems facing single-resource-industry communities. Many northern communities exist solely because of the pulp and paper and the mining industries. Severe difficulties have been experienced by one-industry towns that have lost their major source of employment, towns such as Caland, Steep Rock Falls, Atikokan and, most recently, Pickle Lake, which is faced with the unemployment from the closing of Umex mine, and Bancroft with the Madawaska mine closing.

It was most interesting to read a Toronto Star report of January 19, 1982, which stated, "Ontario Northern Affairs Minister Leo Bernier has joined the call for a joint study group to look into the special problems of communities dependent on the mining industry for their economic health." What makes this report particularly interesting is that this government established a committee on mining communities in 1977 to look into this very same problem. This committee was quietly shelved in 1980 without having arrived at any solutions. In fact, there is some question as to whether this committee ever met at all.

Our inquiries have indicated that the government established a follow-up, in-house interministerial committee in 1980 on single-resource-industry communities, the terms of reference of which are still secret. Perhaps the minister can enlighten us as to what policy has been developed by this in-house committee. What are its terms of reference? Can he tell us what this committee's involvement has been in providing assistance to Pickle Lake and Bancroft? How much longer must we wait for a policy to be announced in this regard? Or is the government waiting for single-industry communities to disappear so it will not have to deal with the problem?

Northern Ontario communities will face economic constraints within the next two decades because of shortages of timber. We are, in fact, facing imminent timber shortages of crisis proportions because of years of government mismanagement, which has allowed more trees to be cut than have been replaced. The total backlog of unregenerated cutover forest land since 1971 is over 1.3 million acres; this backlog is growing at a rate of 160,000 acres per year. During the same period 5.9 million acres of forest have been taken out of production because of forest fires.

Our attempts to grow the second forest have been largely unsuccessful and the backlog of unregenerated forest land is starting to catch up with us. Of the 549,671 acres of total cutover land in 1980-81, regeneration was undertaken on only 48 per cent of the land. Natural regeneration occurred on 181,681 acres and 159,000 acres were left untreated and, essentially, were written off. We are falling behind in our regeneration efforts by some 160,000 acres per year.

A federal report of September 30, 1981, Forest Sector Strategy for Canada, states: "In Ontario, a reduction of the annual allowable cut has already been made and others are likely because of the failure to adequately regenerate a large proportion of forest lands cut over during the past decade. Shortages will become more widespread in the 1980s unless forest renewal performance improves dramatically."

The February 1981 report of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment, titled, The Economic Future of the Forest Products Industry in Northern Ontario, stated: "Fibre supplies are not only insufficient to support additional manufacturing capacity, they are inadequate to support existing capacity without major improvements in utilization. Moreover, the only region in northern Ontario in which adequate wood supplies appear to be present is in northeastern Ontario."

This record makes a mockery of your government's promises contained in the Brampton charter which stated a commitment to replace at least two trees for every one harvested henceforth in Ontario, and to regenerate every acre harvested. That is a novel idea. It is an old chestnut and it will come back to haunt you until you live up to that promise.

What do we see, then, in so far as the forest industry is concerned? A lack of effective, long-term forest management in this province is what we see. We know forestry is one of Ontario's most vital economic assets. As a manufacturing sector it ranks fourth in the province.

In the north, the forest industry is the largest employer. However, the value of primary forest activity here is ultimately restricted owing to the lack of related processing and manufacturing industries. Despite the fact that the Ontario forest industry is so dependent on resources in the north, employment in the secondary manufacturing sector is heavily concentrated in the south.

There are some serious problems with regeneration and some questions I would ask the minister. How many forest management agreements with the Ministry of Natural Resources are being negotiated at present to ensure that forests are harvested and regenerated on a sustained-yield base? How many people have you employed to monitor these companies which have entered into forest management agreements to ensure they meet with your government's reforestation regulations?

In so far as the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development is concerned, how much of the $25 million, earmarked for the management of northern crown forests not currently under FMAs, has been spent and how did you spend it? What did you spend it on? How much of the $10 million designated to the Ministry of Natural Resources for tree nurseries has actually been spent and what is the result of the spending of that money?

I have a few other questions the minister might want to answer. Why are FMAs being signed prior to the Ministry of Natural Resources' strategic land-use planning? It is like the chicken and the egg; which is first? Why are crown land forest operations, of which FMAs are a contractual guideline, exempt from the Environmental Assessment Act until December 1982, and thus exempt from legislative land-use controls?

The minister made reference in his comments to agriculture in the north. We in the opposition perceive a lack of commitment to agriculture in the north.

12:10 p.m.

An examination of the state of agriculture in the north clearly indicates this government's lack of assistance in the development of that industry. The production capability of the area is far beyond that which is currently being attained. In other words, something can be done with it.

The 1976 census figures reveal that of all the commercial farms which sold over $25,000 worth of agricultural products in Ontario, only 613 of the provincial total of 27,664 were in northern Ontario. Moreover, 16 of the 39 counties and regions in southern Ontario had more commercial farms than all of northern Ontario combined.

We all recall the grandiose promises made in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program to drain and plough a million acres of virgin soil in northern and eastern Ontario. Where is the so-called acreage improvement fund which was to have been established for this purpose? This promise was not taken seriously by anyone in view of the fact that under BILD, $400 million was committed over five years in the resource sector, including agriculture, forestry, and mining. To drain one million acres would cost the entire $400 million scheduled for all three sectors.

On May 4, 1979, a northern Ontario agricultural study was established by the Minister of Northern Affairs to examine the potential for commercial vegetable and fruit production near major northern Ontario centres. If the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) were present right now, I am sure he would again mention that food terminal. The committee has never reported and after three years we are still waiting for some recommendations.

I want to talk briefly about native communities. Indians are the victims of a government which simply does not care. They are regarded as nonresidents and the responsibility of the federal government. Provincial policies, however, have an overwhelming effect on Indians' lives. The Ontario government has failed to assume a role in the mediation process, established over three years ago with the Whitedog and Grassy Narrows Indian bands, concerning mercury pollution.

After over 40 months of negotiation, not one major issue in the Ontario package has been resolved. If I am wrong, please tell me as soon as you can what the result has been. The government's position has been simply to participate in the mediation to avoid public criticism, to offer nothing of significance and to ignore the real purpose of the process, namely, to assist two communities crippled by pollution.

Ontario, however, has the most significant responsibility in the events of these Indian reserves: Crown corporation flooding by Ontario Hydro of wild rice; the failure of the Ministry of the Environment to monitor mercury emissions; commercial fishing bans imposed by Ontario; the rape of timber licences by the pulp and paper companies; and the failure to enforce replanting. Ontario's position has been that it has no legal responsibility in the mercury pollution process and it completely ignores any ethical and moral responsibilities. As a result, Ontario has refused to offer virtually anything of significance in the four-party settlement.

The objective of the mediation process was to assist in the social and economic reconstruction of the two Indian communities. Without Ontario's meaningful participation in contributing to the resource access area, no viable solution can result.

The Hartt Royal Commission on the Northern Environment found that wild rice could be a key natural resource on which to base the Indian economy if proper water control devices were constructed to ensure proper water levels. The province, however, has refused to offer any assistance to the Indians to develop this industry. The five year moratorium on new wild rice licences will end in May of next year. Will the minister support the extension of this moratorium, and will he assist the Indians if they bring forth an economic plan for the long-term development of this resource for the Indian people?

He shakes his head "no." Perhaps he can comment on that when he has the opportunity.

Carrying on with the subject of this royal commission, which a few moments ago I called the Hartt commission, the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment, this is my perception and the perception of people I talk to in the north -- and I cannot pretend to be a northerner, but I can certainly do more than pretend to be interested in northern concerns. When I talk to people in the north about this royal commission, one thing comes back to me every time from all of them, that it is the laughing-stock of the north. The commission is in total disarray.

Two former members of the commission have come out publicly and admitted it is a joke. Mildred Barrett, former information officer, and Ron Christiansen, a former director of the commission's public participation program, both say it has been engaged in useless research since Mr. Fahlgren took over.

Some of the research is simply unnecessary; for example, a study on Indian education when a task force studied the same subject a few years ago. The Indians know what they want. This extra study was not required. Studies are being overtaken by events; for example, the study of environmental impact on the road built to Detour Lake, which was due last September, but road construction has already been approved. There are studies dealing with broad areas such as forestry, mining and education, but not specifics such as acid rain, waste disposal, industrial development, water and air pollution.

There are completed studies that have had very little impact. For example, John Willms, a Toronto lawyer, did a 250-page study on land use planning. In it, he wanted to prepare recommendations for legislation and administrative procedures so that residents would have more influence over their land. Yet little, if anything, has been done on that study. Then there is the never, or seldom, used strategic land use plan on West Patricia, an example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing.

The commission was set up in 1977, and it is now well into 1982, and so far has cost $5.6 million, and a guesstimate is that we may go to another $4 or $5 million before the study is completed. It seems that no ministry really wants to have anything to do with this particular royal commission, because it is our understanding now that the responsibility for it has been shifted or shoved over to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry).

We would like to know why that happened. If the Ministry of Northern Affairs is going to carry on, why does it not keep some rein on it? When are we going to see some results? It has now become the most expensive royal commission ever set up by this government. I think the Ministry of Northern Affairs more than any other has the responsibility, if it is going to carry on, to get it back on the track. Too much money has been spent to let it die. The expectations are great. Maybe the minister should consider changing some of the personnel, but no matter what he decides to do, this fiasco should be ended.

I am going to shift to another theme and comment briefly on some ongoing studies.

My colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) has brought up this matter repeatedly in the House and during other estimates. He has pointed out on many occasions, as has the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), that the north has been studied to death. We have such things as the Design for Development study, the West Patricia land use study, The Atikokan Story and the great royal commission, to which I have already referred. Yet we do not seem to get any action from these studies. Single industry towns, forest depletion, environmental problems --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Have you read The Atikokan Story?

Mr. Van Horne: I have tried to read practically everything that has come over my desk. Certainly the minister with all his experience and wisdom and northern background would be able to enlighten me. Let me give him the opportunity to do that rather than us having an exchange while I am completing my notes.

12:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is obvious that you have not read The Atikokan Story.

Mr. Van Horne: The minister can make his comments when I am finished.

I would like specific information on four studies which are presently ongoing. The first one is the task force on the high cost of living in the north. When will the task force report its findings? Will the recommendations made in that study be available to the public?

The second question is: What is the ministry's response to the 15 recommendations that came out of the study that the minister says I did not read? I believe there are 15 recommendations in that Atikokan study.

How many man-hours were spent on the study into rapid transit between Sudbury and Elliott Lake? This was promised by the Premier (Mr. Davis) before the last election.

When will the report on wild rice, conducted by Peter Lee at Lakehead University, be available?

Let me move over to another theme, and that is transportation. I am sure the member for Lake Nipigon is going to have much more to say about this. The minister knows very well that because of the effects of the Via Rail cutbacks, places like Fulton, Mud River, Collins and Allan Water are now completely isolated.

In last year's estimates the minister mentioned building a highway from Nakina over to Savant Lake, paralleling the north line of the Canadian National Railway which would serve those communities that were abandoned. It is a feasible route, so why is the minister passing the buck over to the feds? There is responsibility or certainly a moral obligation on his part in conjunction with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to provide an alternative for these people.

What has come out of the minister's discussions with the federal department of transportation? Is there a possibility of sharing the responsibility? If not, is the minister going to leave these people who live in the isolated areas with no transportation alternative?

Again, my colleague the member for Rainy River has on many occasions, as have other members in our caucus, talked about alternative sources of energy. We have looked to the north as the place that could provide an alternative source of energy. I am referring now to peat. I am following the government's policy concerning peat development as closely as I can.

Since the release of the government study which is headed, "Evaluation of the Potential of Peat in Ontario" expectations have been raised for the possible development of this new major industry for northern Ontario. I think the minister made at least a brief reference to it in his opening comments. The study shows that Ontario has many millions of acres of peat land the development of which would be a tremendous boost to the economy of northern Ontario, with primary sites at Thunder Bay and in the Timmins-Kapuskasing area.

In the throne speech, although there were only two major references to the Ministry of Northern Affairs, one reference was made that this ministry will co-ordinate programs to stimulate and encourage pilot projects using peat and waste wood. However, in the estimates briefing book, only one small reference was made concerning peat development and that was basically only to study the possibility of setting up a pilot project. That too, I think, was reported in one of the press clippings I had here a few moments ago when the minister made reference to his meeting with the Finnish government, or if it was not the Finns, it was another of the Scandinavian countries.

I feel that is not enough. This development should be accompanied by every possible measure of government aid and counselling to get this industry on track. It has been identified as an important resource in the study I referred to, first as a move towards offering an alternative to the present depletion of energy resources and second, as a boost to the economy of northern Ontario.

My last point of concern, Mr. Chairman, though certainly not last in terms of priority, is that I do want to observe that the minister is very much aware of our party's health task force which travelled the north. He was quick to point out that we did not seem to have very much of a positive nature to say. I think those people we did talk with in the north were fully cognizant of the purpose of our visit and fully aware of the government process.

I would not place the intelligence of a northerner under any shadow of doubt; northerners know that the government has one responsibility and members of the opposition have another. Certainly, on occasion we do give the government credit for doing things right, but our major function is to point out areas for improvement and to suggest where we think the government has fallen short of the mark.

With regard to the facilities we saw in the north and the people who are responsible for those facilities, generally the other members of our committee and I were very impressed. Certainly we were impressed with the dedication and skill of the people we talked to.

There are some down sides to some of the facilities. Some of the facilities need additions because they are bulging or almost breaking at the seams; there are other facilities that have been there for some time and need renovating. Our report will point out those areas where we think these changes or improvements could be made.

The minister made reference, I think, to the referral centres. Certainly anyone who has spent any time in the north will agree that this is what they should have. It was pointed out to me time after time when I was in Thunder Bay, that when we say "north" we have to be very cognizant that northwestern Ontario has needs and concerns that are their concerns and are not necessarily the same ones found in northeastern Ontario, and I want to be sure that is on the record. So as we consider the theme of referral centres it is pretty obvious that we would have to have a northeastern and a northwestern if not an additional north central referral centre, for a whole variety of reasons.

The minister made reference to the air ambulance service, to the availability of treatment and facilities within an hour's plane ride, but we both know that there are certain specialty areas lacking in some of the northern communities. I will give one example that was brought to our attention.

In one of the northern communities there is no endocrinologist. The wife of one gentleman had a thyroid problem. That problem led to her having to be treated here in Toronto, and the net result in cost to him, merely for travel expenses, was in excess of a couple of thousand dollars. There is no insurance for that; that is a straightforward cost to his personal resources.

That is one example. There are many others that the minister knows and I know could be put on the table right now. The point is that referral centres of themselves would not answer all of the problems, but certainly they would go a long way towards meeting the needs and expectations of those people in northern Ontario.

Again, I do not want to make too many comments about specific recommendations because they will come forward in the next few weeks when our report comes out. But there are some concerns in areas such as psychiatric treatment and care, and I want to read just a few lines from one of the very complete reports that was presented to our committee.

Those people who are here in committee right now can see the thickness of this report. It is approximately 30 pages. The gentleman who put this report together for us did so because he is dedicated to his job and to the north. This particular reference has to do with the problems of mental health care in the Sudbury and Manitoulin areas.

One of the comments made here is: "Standards, however, are developed by urban professionals from southern Ontario and for the urban southern Ontario situation. It would appear from review of these standards for group homes that not one group home could be set up on an Indian reserve with the current residential facilities there, and thus native people would be excluded from the development of therapeutic facilities for their own people.

12:30 p.m.

As well, these standards have resulted in the closing of a number of group homes, particularly in the Sudbury area. The intention of localization of services was to develop services in each community, particularly in the north, since many children were sent away from their home areas to more adequate residential facilities in southern Ontario. Because of the standards and the closing of a number of facilities, children and young people are still sent to southern Ontario, to such places as Campbellford, Consecon and Kitchener, for long-term therapeutic care.

It is worth noting and pointing out to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) that much of the difficulty has arisen because of the nature of the civil service. With the union of children's services, a large majority of the civil servants came over from the Ministry of Correctional Services. To maintain their position in the civil service, naturally such professionals were incorporated into the new system and have come to dominate the administration of children's services. The program supervisor for the Sudbury Algoma Hospital has a degree in criminology and no experience in mental health institutions.

That is a tough statement. In my view that would make the provision of services not what I would consider adequate for these young people with problems. I am not trying to belittle the person with his criminology background. I am simply saying that kind of background is inadequate to accommodate the needs of young people who might have some mental problems. That is one of the problems that came to us fairly clearly in our review of the north. Again, I do not want to condemn. I am simply pointing out that there are areas for improvement and that certainly is one of them.

I have other specific questions, but I think I will stop at this point and allow the member for Lake Nipigon at least to get started with his remarks. If he is not finished by one o'clock, we will have to wait until next week for these questions and the specifics of these estimates.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, first I want to compliment the member for London North in his new chore of being the Liberal critic for the Ministry of Northern Affairs. It is quite obvious that he has done his homework. He has read my speeches. He has covered a wide range of topics that are of concern to every member from the north and to everybody living in the north. I think he will get a different perspective if he makes a few trips up there rather than just reading recycled speeches down here, but to the extent that he has a grasp of what Northern Affairs is all about, I compliment him.

I want to join with the minister in welcoming the new deputy, Mr. Hobbs, who has had some experience in transportation. I had the privilege of attending a meeting with him, along with representatives of the ministries of Education and Revenue, over an ongoing problem that everybody in this House is aware of. It has to do with the delivery of education services in the north, and I think we have some time to solve that problem.

While Mr. Hobbs has not made a significant contribution towards that overall problem, I know he will be involved with the commission of inquiry that has been set up to look into the delivery of education to students, our most precious resource in the north.

I want to pay tribute to the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) before I get into the main import of what I have to say. I want to pay tribute to his interest and involvement in the educational problem surrounding the closure of the Lake Superior High School campus at Schreiber.

I hope he will not turn his back on the situation, because those of us who live in the north know that when one closes a high school something happens to a community. It is not only a question of dollars. It is not only a question of enrolment. It is a question of how to provide the level of educational excellence promised by the Premier (Mr. Davis) when he was Minister of Education back in 1968 when he fathered the consolidation of schools throughout the province.

It was heartening to hear the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) say, when she announced the setting up of the commission of inquiry, that things are different in the north. There is a uniqueness in the way in which we approach the social and economic problems. Solutions that may be appropriate in southern Ontario have no validity in the north. I am hoping this ministry will become involved in that inquiry.

If one looks at the terms of reference given to Rodger Allan, one will see that he will be meeting with the school board and concerned citizens. There is an opportunity for him to meet with staff of other ministries having responsibility for the delivery of services in the north. I am impressing upon the Minister of Education and the Provincial Secretary for Social Development that one does not look just at the dollars and the numbers, one looks at the quality of the product that one is making available in terms of providing an educational experience for northern students.

This minister has become involved in this important question. I hope he and those in the ministry who are responsible will continue this so we get a resolution of this problem that will deliver the educational experience students in the north have a right to expect.

One of the heartening things is that out of adversity comes an opportunity to take a new approach to the delivery of those services. I know the minister is well aware of what happened in Red Lake a few days ago. There again, the commissioner is not only going to look at the Lake Superior situation; he has a mandate to go a little farther afield and bring in recommendations that have some application to all similar situations throughout the north. I think the minister has to become even more involved than he has been up to this point.

I want to refer to another situation before I get into the main import of my remarks. It has to do with a natural disaster in Fort Severn, which is the most northerly community in Ontario. It is an Indian reserve. Late last fall, right after the goose hunt in that community, they had very high winds and very high tides which wiped out all the boats, all the motors and all the equipment they use not only to conduct the goose hunt but to pursue their traditional lifestyle of hunting, fishing and trapping in that community on the shores of Hudson Bay. The result of that disaster, and it was a disaster in a northern community like Fort Severn, was that they lost all their equipment, and the price tag that was put on it was something like $22,000.

12:40 p.m.

They asked me to intercede on their behalf with both the provincial government and the federal government, and the answer I got from both levels of government was, "No, there is nothing we can do." I approached the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), I wrote to the Minister of Northern Affairs, I wrote to the then Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Ramsay) and I wrote to those people over in Ottawa who were responsible, in my view. The answer was still no.

I persevered with the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. He was convinced that restoring the means of livelihood in that northern community was something we had a responsibility to get involved in. That is why I suggested to the member for London North that it is all right to listen to what has been said about the mandate of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, but you really have to get out into those communities and find out what is going on. We will throw away $22,000 here without batting an eye, and yet we will deny a northern community like Fort Severn that $22,000 to restore their means of making a living.

Mr. Nixon: The minister's predecessor took us to Fort Severn.

Mr. Stokes: That's right. The reason I relate this story to the committee here today is that the result of my intercession with the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development and, latterly, the new Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey) was that we got a commitment from our own resources policy field for the amount of $12,000. They said, "We hope you will use your good offices to impress on the federal government that they have some responsibility in this, because it is a problem concerning native people and it is a reserve."

They continued to say no over in Ottawa until May 12. Finally, on May 13 I got a letter from the Honourable John Munro, who said, "This is not an insurance matter." But he considered it to be a political matter, and we cajoled them into coming up with $10,000 in order to satisfy the very legitimate needs of a northern community.

I will let the members of this committee draw their own conclusions as to who was embarrassed and whose primary responsibility it was to satisfy that legitimate need. That is where the Ministry of Northern Affairs comes in. I want to say right here and now that had it not have been for the intervention of Russ Ramsay we would not have not made the grade at either the provincial or the federal level. Let that be a lesson to the Minister of Northern Affairs, because he was fully aware of what was going on. I kept him fully apprised. I do not want to go over it in great detail, but this is his mandate.

Let me remind the minister of that by throwing his own words back at him, taken from the Ministry of Northern Affairs 1982-83 estimates, wherein it is stated that the ministry's mandate is "advising and participating in the planning and financing of government programs, services and activities in northern Ontario provided by other ministries; improving the accessibility of the programs, services and activities of the government of Ontario to the residents of northern Ontario; making recommendations regarding priorities for research of social and economic conditions of all areas of northern Ontario."

More specifically, the mandate is to "maintain effective liaison with appropriate officials through the government of Ontario and other levels of government" and to "participate in government and interministerial planning and advisory committees, task forces and study groups," and so it goes.

I want to impress upon the minister and anybody else who cares about northern affairs that not only do you have a responsibility to co-ordinate the programs you have direct responsibility for, you have the responsibility for interministerial programs at this level and for intergovernmental programs.

We have the Department of Regional Economic Expansion Ontario agreements, which are very high profile. A good many of the major industries in northern Ontario say: "This is government at its finest. You get so much money from the federal government and so much money from the provincial government." The industrial wizards in northern Ontario think it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But when we get something like a modest request for $22,000 from a northern community, where are you, Mr. Minister?

Let me highlight what I mean in very specific terms by quoting from a letter I received from Wunnumin Lake.

"Dear Mr. Stokes:

"Please find enclosed a copy of correspondence and a band council resolution submitted to the Department of Indian Affairs requesting immediate action in meeting our need and demand for community electrification. You are probably adequately aware of our situation in regard to this matter as you have been in our community on several occasions. I feel the enclosed documents will indicate our position on this most urgent matter.

"It is totally unsatisfactory and unfair for our people to be left without electricity, especially when the government's highest priority is to exploit more energy from our natural resources. It is completely shameful that the government is leaving a community of 315 people without electricity in this day and age. This situation must be resolved immediately. Therefore we urge the government to provide funding so that community electrification may become a reality for us by the end of 1984.

"Your assistance is required in lobbying on our behalf and dispersing the enclosed documents to the Minister of Indian Affairs and other appropriate levels of government.

"Yours very truly, Chief John Bighead."

There is another letter, stating that in 1981, 58 residents of Wunnumin Lake would have spent $12,876 for one year based on 200 kilowatt hours per month" at the normal rate if they had electricity. Let me tell you what they actually spent, with their little portable Honda and other makes of generators. They spent $42,000 on gasoline and oil to operate their own individual generators in that community.

12:50 p.m.

I realize the dollars required to install diesel generators in a community like Wunnumin Lake is not directly the responsibility of this ministry. The funds will be made available in their own good time by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the work is actually done by Ontario Hydro. You know how slowly that department works in the overall scheme of things.

These are the kinds of problems this ministry can legitimately undertake, given the mandate I alluded to a little earlier. The minister and this ministry have a responsibility to do just that.

Let me talk about a few other things dealing specifically with native problems which I want to bring to the minister's attention. The minister mentioned the situation at Armstrong in his opening remarks. In Armstrong, we have the Whitesand Indian band. They are looking for some seed money to determine where they will establish a reserve. Apparently they have some kind of commitment from the federal government that a reserve will be established in the vicinity of Armstrong for the Whitesand band. It will require very close liaison between the federal government and the provincial government to accomplish this.

The minister also knows about money that was made available by his ministry to assist in the setting up of an economic development officer and a study that will allow them to achieve some kind of economic base, based on the resources that are indigenous to that area.

On at least two or three occasions, the minister had representatives at meetings that were held in Armstrong. I know his people there, particularly Neil Stuart and other people from the Thunder Bay office, are fully aware of it.

There are areas where you can assist communities like Armstrong and groups like the Whitesand band so they can co-ordinate their efforts. The last thing we want is another brand new Indian reserve, 20, 30 or 40 miles out in the wilderness when we can have a viable community made up of our first citizens and long-time residents of a community like Armstrong. Then we can co-ordinate the needs and aspirations of all the people in that area. In other words, we can find better ways of doing things.

Not only do you have the mandate to do that, I think you have a moral and legal obligation to get involved in those kinds of things.

There is one other problem I want to bring to the attention of the minister and this committee, one of which I am sure he is aware. If the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) is not aware of it she should be, and I am grateful she has chosen to be here on this occasion, allowing me to speak to her directly. It has to do with the desperate social problem we have in many communities in northern Ontario affecting children, particularly native children.

I want to report to both the ministers that I have a community in my riding -- I will not mention it by name -- where 10 per cent of all the children residing there are under the care of a children's aid society. The Minister of Northern Affairs will know the community I am speaking of. A program has to be initiated that will focus attention on that very serious need. Other jurisdictions have allocated human and financial resources to resolve the problem, and if we are ever going to bring our first citizens into the social and economic mainstream of this province and this country we have to start with education and we have to allocate every bit of our human and financial resources to solve this very serious problem.

It is being done in other jurisdictions. In Manitoba, they believe the responsibility for the wellbeing and care of our children rests not only with the parents but with society as a whole. When you look at the lives of native children there are a lot of issues that come to mind. Two issues have been in the news lately, both of them stories coming out of Manitoba. For a long time, native leaders have been asking for jurisdiction and control over the social services that are provided to their children, and an agreement was just signed in Manitoba to accomplish that.

We must give responsible native leaders control over the treatment of this very serious problem confronting the children of native people in northern Ontario. It is a very delicate kind of problem. People will say I am being overly dramatic, but this minister, along with the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, should talk to children's aid societies, talk to court workers, talk to the legal aid people who assist our first citizens who run afoul of the law. John Nywening of the social development secretariat is well aware in detail of what I am talking about.

I do not want to drag all the embarrassing details out here but these two ministers, more than any other, have not only the responsibility but an opportunity to do something useful, meaningful, worthwhile, and desperately needed to bring order out of the chaos confronting a lot of the children in that area. If either minister wants more details of what I am talking about, I will be only too happy to provide them. This ministry and that secretariat have a responsibility to address themselves to that problem. I cannot stress too much the urgency of dealing with that problem as it affects the children of our first citizens in many communities in northern Ontario.

I have many other things I want to get into, but I think this would be an appropriate time for me to break off my remarks.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Gregory, the committee of supply reported progress.

The House adjourned at 1:01 p.m.

28 mai 1982