CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, PROVINCIAL SECRETARIAT FOR RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (CONCLUDED)
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, PROVINCIAL SECRETARIAT FOR RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (CONCLUDED)
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I will continue with the train of thought I was following when we adjourned for supper with reference to what I consider is the need for the opportunity for those of us from southern Ontario to get up into the northern part of the province and see what is actually going on there.
We have had an extensive royal commission investigating this and want to refer to that in a few moments. I had the feeling the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Henderson) would be the ideal person to assume the responsibility of leading a delegation of members from this House.
It would not necessarily be a committee, but would involve any members who could take the time and had the interest to go to northern Ontario. Not many of us realize that the geographic centre of this province is somewhere north of Kapuskasing. We tend to think the universe centres here in Toronto or more nearly around South Dumfries township which, of course, is an important part of the province.
We have heard some of the discussions among the northern members about the development and lack of development there, but it has been many years since those not involved in the ministries having to do with development, like Northern Affairs and Natural Resources, have had a chance to go up there, meet the people and actually see the woods operations, the mining operations and some of the outposts for which we are asked to provide funds and for which we are asked to support or criticize the government from time to time, depending on our positions.
I would remind the minister that the last significant tour of the north was approximately a decade ago.
Mr. Stokes: It was in 1972.
Mr. Nixon: It was in 1972, so it is longer than that. I can recall we flew to Thunder Bay or the Lakehead, as we chose to call it in those days before Darcy McKeough screwed that up for all time. Using the planes of the then Department of Lands and Forests, we then flew north to Trout Lake and on up to Fort Severn. Coming down the shores of Hudson Bay we met residents of the communities in most of those areas. I would point out to the minister that we even took a day off to do some fishing on one occasion.
Mr. Stokes: That was 1968.
Mr. Nixon: We fished that other year too, although I probably have the time mixed up. There is no doubt about that.
I suggest the minister might arrange for us to end the airborne part of the trip at Moosonee and come down on our provincial railway, stopping off to see the by now, surely, large development at Onakawana, where it was announced many years ago we were investing many millions of dollars for the removal of peat and soft coal -- what do they call that?
Mr. Stokes: Lignite.
Mr. Nixon: Yes; lignite. I have no doubt in my mind that --
Mr. Stokes: You said that facetiously.
Mr. Nixon: Well, because of the commitment the government made at least eight years ago, there must be a substantial development there. As a matter of fact, during the last trip, more than 10 years ago, the minister led us out into the bush and showed us the very area where the sod would be turned -- I guess they do not have sod up there -- where the excavations would take place.
I would simply suggest there is nothing untoward about this proposal. I am sometimes accused of favouring trips for myself and opposing them for anybody else, but the taxpayers would surely be glad to have an opportunity to allow the members of the Legislature to get into the northern part of the province.
I would also suggest, when I am talking about this, that the minister must realize -- he and I being farmers, and perhaps he is a little more removed from the sod than I now that he has been living off royal jelly for so long -- that he might, in fact, give our more urban colleagues in this House an opportunity to get into some of the rural parts of Ontario to see what we consider to be the basis of Ontario's economy.
In conjunction with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, we could establish quite an efficient trip that would be anything but a boondoggle, and would allow the members to see the growing of our corn crops and soybean crops, the production of beef and milk and some of the new crops that are in the experimental basis, such as the peanut crops; and, of course, the large tobacco area which returns so much tax revenues to the province. The tobacco crop alone returns to the provincial Treasury in provincial tax on tobacco far more than we spend on all of our provincial agricultural programs.
I would also suggest that since the minister has a broad sweep of responsibility in the policy development area, we should at the same time call on some of the conservation authorities, which I think have gone without substantial review in this House for a good long time. It has occurred to me, and I have said so before publicly and in this House, that we perhaps may be past due for a review of the shared responsibilities in developing and, let us say, conserving our watersheds.
The second thing I want to refer to in this connection has to do with a matter that was raised in the previous concurrence, but which obviously is a part of the responsibility of this ministry as well. I am talking about the policy as regards Indian affairs. It is obvious that I must speak about this matter, since I have the honour to represent the most populous Indian reservation in Canada.
Many of the people who have spoken already on this matter were referring to the Indian bands in northern Ontario, which no doubt have much more immediate problems than the Six Nations bands, which are so prosperous and such outstanding community leaders in my own constituency.
I would just like to point out that under the leadership of the elected chief in council in the Six Nations Indian Reserve, there have been many outstanding recent developments, including a new council house and very modern facilities for medical care, including dentistry, for the residents of the reserve community. They have recently received approval for a new nursing home with an expansion of the number of approved beds.
There is a new bridge across the historic Grand River which is being built with Indian funds and the participation of the government of Canada; and so it goes. It shows that where governments show a direct interest in the welfare of the Indian community, substantial improvements can be achieved with the co-operation of the Indians themselves.
The thing that really appals me about what is going on now is that this minister, as the director of policy in this regard, in conjunction with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), has not seen fit to involve the members of the Legislature in any significant way whatsoever, not even in the discussion of the policy that should direct Ontario as regards our dealings with the Indian community.
It is much too easy to say that this is a federal responsibility. Naturally, there are various treaties, and under the Constitution of the country the main responsibility lies there, but we, too, have treaties with the Indian community. It was raised in the debate briefly this afternoon that there are cautions on the titles of many thousands of acres of land in northern Ontario. Those cautions have prohibited development in those lands now for a decade.
8:10 p.m.
While these matters are before the Supreme Court -- and frankly, I hope they will be settled in the near future one way or the other, I hope it will be to the benefit of the Indians and I trust it will be -- the members of this House have a role to play, particularly when we see that more and more we are called upon to assist in the provision of education services, medical services and developmental programs for the Indians both in the north and in the south.
I have called for a long time for the establishment of a select committee of this House, perhaps made up of only the members who have the special responsibility and honour to represent the Indian communities here. It is not good enough for us to hear two or three ministers and occasionally the Premier (Mr. Davis) indicate their personal concern with this matter. We should be travelling right out to the Indian reserves, sitting down in their council houses around their council tables with their chiefs and councillors leading the discussion instead of having them come here, putting them up at public expense in Sutton Place, inundating them with all sorts of hospitality and expecting to have any sort of rational discussion about the future of our provincial role in Indian affairs under those circumstances.
This is completely inadequate, and although the Indians have developed a substantial expertise in dealing with representatives of government, including the public service, those of us who are elected members still feel we have been unnaturally kept out of the discussions that surely must direct the first minister of Ontario, along with his colleagues from across Canada, when they discuss these matters with the Prime Minister.
There is going to be a conference of first ministers within the next few weeks at which Indian affairs, under the agreement reached at the time of the signing of the new Constitution, are going to be the only matters discussed. It really seems tragic and unacceptable that we as members of this House have not had an opportunity to assist in the shaping of provincial policy as we go into that conference and that we have read press reports of some sort of agreement entered into by the Minister of Natural Resources with the Indian community in which the right to hunt and fish in very large areas will be turned over exclusively to them.
I have a feeling that I have not really caught the major attention of the policy minister in this matter. I do not know why that is. I have felt ever since the discussion started that he could only wait until it was completed and the paltry amount of money that we are voting for the establishment of policy in this area is voted. I do not know whether he is losing interest in the matter or whether he feels he is so out of things over there that it does not make much difference whether he has an opinion or not. I find it considerably disconcerting that the government of Ontario has not seen fit to consult the members of the Legislature or even the members of the Indian community in any significant way before they go to Ottawa to speak for this cornerstone province in the establishment of a whole new approach to the co-operation between the Indian community and the provincial and federal governments.
I resent it. I and others in the opposition parties and in the government party have called for a much closer liaison between government and the elected --
Oh God, I am keeping him up. I guess there is not much I can do to instil interest in a person who simply has none.
Actually, I feel very strongly about this. I raised it with the Premier and with other ministers who perhaps have a more immediate interest in a matter that I consider to be one of our prime responsibilities as citizens and as elected representatives. I think the province has for too long ignored our responsibilities in this connection and obviously, with the kind of leadership this minister continues to give us, they will continue to ignore it.
My last point has to do with the report of the Provincial Auditor for the year ending March 31, 1982. Reading from page 81, we are informed that the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment established on July 13, 1977 is expending $1,249,731 in 1982. That is well over $1.25 million, and it had spent up until last March, almost a year ago, $6,238,356. With what is being spent this year and with what we expect will be spent next year, this commission will undoubtedly have spent $10 million by the time it is wound down and has published its report.
It was established in 1977. I well remember the circumstances because the then Minister of Lands and Forests, with a stroke of a pen, handed over an area of bush land in the far north of Ontario equivalent to the size of the province of Nova Scotia without any consultation in this House or with anyone else. There was such an uproar at the time that this grant of timber privilege was withdrawn. Given that, along with the continuing problems of mercury pollution in the English and Wabigoon Rivers, it was seen fit by the then government to get this problem off its back, at least in some small measure, by appointing a royal commission.
Mr. Justice Hartt was persuaded to become the chairman of the commission, and it started off with what has now become more or less the regular procedure in the establishment of these commissions; that is, absolutely no control on the expenditures for legal advice and consultancies of every description, including public relations, of course. From that time to this the royal commission, which now has a new chairman, has been doing -- we do not know what -- while spending well on the way to its goal of $10 million.
It is typical that we received copies of communications from the royal commissioner just about Christmas time, when we were under the pressures of trying to wind up our business before the New Year -- unsuccessful pressures, because we find ourselves still here. One of the things I marvelled at was a copy of a letter dated December 17 to the Minister of Natural Resources, signed by the chairman of the commission, I. E. J. Fahlgren. It contained this paragraph:
"In my letter to the Premier, I set forth certain required actions. The particular requirements that call for your response read as follows:
"1. That the Minister of Natural Resources or his senior staff respond fully in writing before December 31, 1982 to the questions and concerns read into the public record of my hearings on December 2, 1982."
Sometimes we close a little early for Christmas, and our commitment to this great year-end Christian festival perhaps obscures our need to continue with the day-to-day responsibilities we must assume. Still, I felt it was typical of the blurred view of reality that this commission has been guilty of over the years, that it would give this sort of peremptory direction to the Minister of Natural Resources on December 17, requiring a full response in writing in less than two weeks.
That commission has been in operation since 1977. Since that time, it has spent $6 million of our money, and it comes along with this sort of direction to the ministry backed up with a letter to the Premier. It is difficult for me to determine just what it has in mind. I can only give my general impression that the royal commission has been the most unutterable fiasco in this province in a decade. The commitment of dollars is bad enough, but the inflation of some sort of false hope for northern development is even worse. I would be the last one to personally criticize a royal commissioner or anyone's staff, but the Premier, the Minister of Natural Resources and the policy secretariat led by the minister who is asking for our approval of his funds tonight have surely been shirking their responsibilities in not providing some direction to the royal commissioner.
8:20 p.m.
When these complaints have been put in the past, the Premier has piously indicated to the House that he knows we would not want him to interfere with the full independence of a royal commission embarked on such an important program. But I would say, if it is clear that the leadership of the commission is inadequate, if they do not seem to be moving towards any sort of resolution of the terms of reference put before them, and even at this late date they offer peremptory instructions to the minister which I cannot see could possibly be fulfilled in any realistic way, then it is time for the head of the government, or even the policy minister perhaps, to timorously put forward an inquiry as to what the devil the commission thinks it is doing after all these years and the expenditure of all these dollars.
I have nothing against royal commissions, and the minister knows that on more than one occasion from my place on this side of the House I have called on the government to establish a royal commission, because only in that way can we have a completely impartial inquiry into an area which it is deemed must be reviewed by a judge or by some worthy and properly qualified impartial inquirer.
This has become a boondoggle. We are deeply concerned not only at the waste of money, but over the fact that we may never get the sort of recommendations that are going to be meaningful. After all, if we go back to 1977, what might have been a factual and useful conclusion at that time will be long out of date, useless and a waste of time and money.
When I think of the platoon of public relations experts following the commissioners around the province and sending out their various informative bulletins to all and sundry on a very large mailing list, I just wonder, really, whether they have forgotten the terms of reference.
My own view is that it is not a needless interference in autonomy if a reasonable time deadline is established for a royal commission which undertakes this sort of review. I have felt that in the past and I feel it now, and particularly in this instance I would call upon the minister to exercise his undoubted authority in this regard, and to be able to report to the House that this commission sees the end of its hearings and is able to promise to this House that there will be a viable report placed before us, certainly before the end of this year.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a few minutes, because I realize that other honourable members want to speak to this important topic, to bring a few things to the attention of the minister.
Recognizing that the minister, in his role of Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, is ultimately responsible for such areas as labour and agriculture, among others, and some of the policies involved therein, I would have to say I am particularly disturbed in two areas that are closely linked, labour and agriculture.
We know that the Ministry of Labour is responsible for such issues as women in the work place and related matters. We also know that one of his other ministers is responsible for agriculture. Last week, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), together with the member for Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), announced the appointment of an advisory committee on agricultural education at the Alfred College of Agriculture and Food Technology in my riding.
Of course, that is fine. The minister can choose whomever he likes to make his announcement. However, something that is of great concern to me, and I would like the minister to address it, is that of the following 11 people who were named to that particular committee: Jean-Noel Dessaint, Alain Lavigne, Jean-Guy Lapointe, Rhéal Levac, Laurent Cantin, Richard Pinsonneault, Roger Ravary, Lucien Lepage, Marcel Legault, Roland Serre and André Legoueff. The minister will observe that not one of them is a woman, yet one third of all the students in that agricultural college are women.
Those are the kinds of policies that we see this government coming up with. Is the minister not yet attuned to the fact that women in this province do other things besides cook?
Let me tell the minister, I made a few phone calls and a few inquiries on this issue. One of the answers I got, believe it or not, was, "We are going to have another committee as it pertains to the food technology department" -- just picture what "food technology" really means -- "and, of course, we will consider putting some women in that group."
For everybody's information, that is the cooking committee. A lot of women will be on that one. As it pertains to the agriculture group, even though there are several women at that agricultural college, not one woman was named to that group.
The minister and his colleagues may say: "Oh, yes, but that is just an interim group and we will appoint more." I phoned every single women's group in my area but none was even asked to put in a name for that committee. I think it should be said publicly it is a disgrace this government is doing that kind of thing in 1983.
The minister and his government should be aware that, in my constituency and several others, there are farms run by women. For instance, there is a hog operation in my constituency that is run by a woman. There is another farm in Sarsfield, Ontario, where a father and his two daughters, both of whom have graduated from a school of agricultural technology, are running the farm. He does not have any sons. Those farming groups in my riding notwithstanding, that is also an insult to the women who are in that school.
I hope those kinds of things are rectified, because they are inadequate and shocking. It is disgraceful for a government to do that kind of thing to the women of this province in 1983.
There are a few other things I would like to address. They involve the eastern Ontario development agreement, an agreement signed between the provincial and federal governments. That agreement calls for a contribution of half and half from the two levels of government to fund certain things. One of those things is agricultural improvement and drainage improvement in eastern Ontario.
I think the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development was the Minister of Agriculture and Food when the agreement was signed. I am not entirely sure of that because I was not a member of this Legislature at that time. The minister is aware the federal funds for that agreement have run out. I recognize those funds are not from this government but are federal funds.
However, I would like to draw to the minister's attention that a similar thing happened in 1979 when we ran out of funds for a similar agreement. I believe at that time the Progressive Conservative Party was in power in Ottawa. For a long while, this government chose to apply the federal portion, in other words to fund the federal portion pending the signing of a new agreement with the federal government. At this time, I have not seen any such action on the part of this government and it concerns me greatly. If this government could do it in 1979, why can it not do that today?
I recognize the minister is going to say dollars are scarce and I accept that as an answer. However, there are projects that have been started. For instance, engineers have drawn engineering reports. Now that we know there is no money for the projects after the engineering reports have been done, the municipalities are all of a sudden going to be stuck with paying the bills because the projects will not go ahead.
There is another concern. Some projects have been approved by the drainage subcommittee. The municipalities, expecting in good faith that the management committee was going to approve these projects, had proceeded and constructed those municipal drains.
The drains are completed. I understand something like 60 of them have been completed throughout eastern Ontario. I notice there are a few eastern Ontario members in the Legislature at this time, as well as the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman) who has many farmers in his area. They will be aware that many people have proceeded and constructed those drains only to find out the invoice is two or three times the price that was registered on the estimate.
The minister, being a farmer, will know that when estimates are produced for a drain, even if one has the full grant at that time, sometimes in the course of construction one discovers such things as hard pan while digging a drain and that escalates the cost of construction of the drain tremendously. Then one has to apply for a supplementary grant. However, the agreement having gone dry, one cannot get any more money. One cannot draw blood from a stone. There is no money left in the agreement, so one cannot apply for a grant for that extra one third of the portion which is supplementary to the original cost.
Those three or four things combined, as they pertain to the eastern Ontario development agreement, are causing grave concern not only in my own constituency but also in the various constituencies of eastern Ontario.
8:30 p.m.
A petition was started in the riding of Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry, in the township of Roxborough, that asked for supporting resolutions from other eastern Ontario municipalities to bring this to the attention of this government and the federal government. I recognize that the funding is a federal jurisdiction, but management and the responsibility for how the funds are allocated have to do with this provincial policy area and the Minister of Agriculture and Food.
Recognizing the time that the provincial secretary has spent as Minister of Agriculture and Food, and now in the area of resources, I hope he can enlighten us on what he is going to do with three things: the drains already started, not knowing that they were not going to get the extra one-third grant; the drains completed that ran into overruns of cost; and future projects where, for instance, the engineering work may be done and the drain not yet constructed.
The provincial secretary should address those issues, not to mention the new drains being contemplated now, if there are any given the fact we do not have that one-third grant. Many people are not proceeding with any kind of construction of new drainage at all, and that affects employment in my area as well because many people were in the business of constructing those drains.
The minister will recognize that in the days when he was Minister of Agriculture and Food, and prior to that, many drains were constructed in southwestern Ontario and in other areas. It now seems, when we go to develop the economy of eastern Ontario, that suddenly the pot is dry once more; just as a few years ago the pot ran dry in the area of tile drainage in eastern Ontario after southwestern Ontario had all been drained. Now we see the same thing going on with this type of drainage.
Again, I say that recognizing that the one-third portion is a federal grant but is administered by the provincial secretary. I hope his government can come to grips with at least the projects that have been started. I attempted to discuss that in the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food but, recognizing the provincial secretary's experience there and the fact that he is responsible for that area of policy, I hope that somehow he can either convince his colleague, address the issue or talk to cabinet about that very important area.
Just one final thing: the farm interest adjustment program. I recognize that is still in the same area, but I would like to suggest to the provincial secretary, as the minister responsible for that area of policy as well, that with the declining interest rate right now much of the money he has left in the program will end up not being used.
I wrote a letter to the provincial secretary's colleague, asking that farmers be permitted to apply retroactively from January 1, 1982, so that even though interest rates have gone down, those people who had a real bad turn of events in 1982 could now apply retroactively to that time.
He is probably going to say, "Well, why didn't they apply in 1982?" It so happens, with the policy some banks have in eastern Ontario and probably elsewhere, that when some farmers in my area applied under the Farm Credit Corp. they were told by their bankers: "Don't bother right now with the Ontario program, the farm interest adjustment program. Let's wait until we are finished with the federal thing first." Knowing how quickly they deal with things, that took a good part of the year. Now they have their federal money and they did not apply for the farm interest adjustment program; there is very little use in applying for it now because the interest rates have gone down.
What I am asking is whether the minister's government, as a matter of policy, would consider allowing them to apply back from January 1, 1982. There cannot be many farmers involved, but those who are involved could be greatly affected by this change in policy. It could assist them to a great extent. I recognize that there are perhaps only 100 farmers across the province who would be affected, but the minister himself being in agriculture will recognize that those 100 farmers could sure use money when it comes to a situation as serious as this.
Those are all the remarks I wanted to make. I hope the minister can address some of them.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, we had a fairly good go on the estimates of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development when it was before the committee. I felt that the provincial secretary was less than forthcoming about the kind of things I thought somebody with overall co-ordinating responsibilities should have been able to share with the committee on that occasion.
I want to ask the provincial secretary, first of all, what the state of the art is with regard to the forthcoming first ministers' conference that will be convened about the middle of March in Ottawa. I know that his deputy and the Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs have been involved, as has the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) of this province. Having listened to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) and the approach he would like to see taken in preparing our first minister and the ministers who will be backing him up at that first ministers' conference dealing specifically with treaty and aboriginal rights, I think it probably would have stood this minister, the first minister and any others who would have been involved in good stead had they consulted with those of us in this assembly who deal with our first citizens on a regular and ongoing basis.
I have 22 Indian reserves in my riding. I have a lot of other communities that do not enjoy reserve status but are made up largely of our first citizens. One would have thought that this minister, who is more responsible for the co-ordination of policies dealing exclusively with native affairs, treaty and aboriginal rights than any other member of the ministry, would have wanted to take the time to sit down and talk with members of this assembly who have the responsibility for speaking out on behalf of our first citizens.
This is not the first time this request has not been made, and it probably will not be the last time. In preparing those who will be speaking or presuming to speak on behalf of our first citizens at a meeting in Ottawa, I understand the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development has one native person on his staff, who happens to come from Manitoba. That is a far cry from a representative group of first citizens whom he could be calling upon for advice.
I understand there has been some liaison with some of the native groups, but certainly not in an organized fashion. I think that in ignoring members of this assembly who have something meaningful, and I hope something useful, to say about the problems of respecting the treaty and aboriginal rights of our first citizens, by not taking advantage of an opportunity to consult with us, the minister does so at his own peril.
I would like to ask the minister in general terms what he sees as his personal responsibility for speaking on behalf of the government concerning native affairs. I have read that it is his primary responsibility -- that is, as opposed to any other minister of government -- to maintain liaison with all the other ministries of government and with the federal government in areas where there is, or we hope will be, a tripartite agreement such as the fishing agreement that has received so much attention in recent weeks.
8:40 p.m.
I do not know how closely involved the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development was in the negotiations. I get the impression in listening to his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) that that minister clearly undertook this on his own initiative, but I am also assured that it had to have the approval of cabinet. It certainly had to have the approval of the committee of cabinet having responsibility for the resources policy field. For people like the provincial secretary and his colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) to leave the Minister of Natural Resources hanging out to dry, as they have done, I do not think did him or themselves any service.
I was there on that infamous day when the representatives of the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association presented their brief to the cabinet committee in the Whitney Block. The provincial secretary was chairing the meeting, and he saw the reaction he got from all those municipal delegates from northwestern Ontario. They did not want to talk about the prepared dossier of resolutions that dealt with almost every ministry of government. They wanted to talk about the fishing agreement that they had just been made aware of about 24 hours before that.
One would have thought that this minister, as the one minister in this government who is most responsible for native affairs, co-ordinating programs of such far-reaching importance and significance that they were going to affect anglers and hunters, the tourist operators and everybody who wants to share in those resources, surely could have come up with some kind of mechanism, some kind of dissemination of information, even consultation, in advance of signing that agreement with our first citizens.
We know it is not law, because the federal government takes exception to a couple of details in that agreement; they say it is unconstitutional inasmuch as the minister is transferring the responsibility for the management of a resource from the federal government to the provincial government. They agree with that, but they disagree most vehemently with transferring that responsibility from the province to another nongovernmental group.
I happen to think they are overreacting, because I think the provisions of the agreement still give the final responsibility to the minister who has it now, namely the Minister of Natural Resources on behalf of the government and on behalf of all the citizens of this province.
It seems to me that this minister, the provincial secretary responsible for the resources policy field, could have assisted his colleague in allowing and facilitating the dissemination of that kind of information and that kind of consultation, so it would not have come as such a shock to so many people.
I want to ask the minister specifically, since he is the one minister more responsible for native affairs, how many people does he actually have on his staff within the secretariat and what specifically do they do?
I have reason for asking that. It is not just a fishing expedition, and I am not trying to take up time, because I have had some long talks with his predecessor. I asked him point blank, in private, what I am going to ask this minister publicly. As the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, he has the chief and front-line responsibility for native programs, even though he does not have any money within his secretariat to fund those programs.
He also has, within the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, a branch called the native community branch, with a budget of something like $4 million to $5 million. If one knows the history of that branch, it has been kicked around from pillar to post. At one time it was within the Department of Social and Family Services. On another occasion it was with the Department of the Provincial Secretary. Then it went to the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Then it was with the Ministry of Culture and Recreation. Now it is with the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. Frankly, I do not know what it does.
That is not quite accurate. I know what it does; but the funds they have are very limited, given the kind of mandate that it should have, being the one branch of any ministry that has any funds at its disposal to assist our first citizens with regard to their cultural endeavours, with regard to community development, economic development in native communities -- all the things we could be doing to assist our first citizens to help themselves.
It makes me wonder, when we have a Provincial Secretary for Resources Development sitting over there with the primary responsibility for native affairs and he does not have any money. I do not know whether he has any ideas, but he certainly does not have any money. He has a co-ordinating responsibility, but I do not know what he co-ordinates.
Then we have the native community branch with a limited amount of funds, and I commend to the provincial secretary's attention a document that was released late last fall, which was a critique of the record of the native community branch over the past several years. It may have been a review that went back as far as 10 years. If the provincial secretary reads that, he will be disturbed, if he cares a hoot about his responsibility to our first citizens.
8:50 p.m.
I am asking, as I asked the minister's predecessor, if we are really serious about assisting in bringing our first citizens into the social and economic mainstream of Ontario and Canadian society, and at the same time respecting their treaty, cultural and aboriginal rights? I am sure the minister will want to take a look at how he can do that much more effectively. I suggest one of the ways to do that is to combine the minister's function as co-ordinator. Whether dealing directly with the native people or in a tripartite function with the native people, the province and the federal government, it would be useful, if he had some money of his own, to put his money where his mouth is.
It makes no sense for the minister to be sitting there postulating and saying: "Yes, we think this is a good idea. Yes, we think that is a good idea," then sloughing it off on to somebody else. If he is going to do anything useful, meaningful or productive to assist our first citizens, I suggest he should have not only the financial resources but also the human resources within his secretariat to respond to those very legitimate needs.
The minister is yawning. He is bored stiff. It just shows the degree of interest he has in the job that is truly his or in what I am saying about it. I am not trying to be critical. I am trying to be helpful, but I do not think the provincial secretary cares a damn. I think he has been over there too long. Now that the government has its majority back, the realities of March 19, he is back into his own lethargic, laissez-faire, complacent way of doing things. He should not think the people out there do not know it. I just get a little bit sick about the minister half-sleeping here, just tolerating us, while we are trying to say something useful, meaningful and constructive. He is a pain in the rump.
Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Is that unparliamentary?
Mr. Stokes: If it is unparliamentary, I withdraw it.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you.
Mr. Lane: There is another word.
Mr. Stokes: Yes, there is.
I want to ask the minister what he has done with regard to assisting in what will probably be the most important decision any government anywhere at any level under any circumstances will ever make in terms of the future social and economic wellbeing of any group of people. I am talking about agreements for which he had some peripheral responsibility. If the minister cared a darn, he could get into this in a very meaningful way.
Would the minister care to guess what I am talking about in terms of resources? Would the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development care to guess what I am going to talk about? He may have a clue, but I doubt it.
I am talking about forest management agreements, which his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources is getting into. They have signed six of them. They are hoping between now and 1985 to have forest management agreements covering 80 to 90 per cent of all the forested area under licence in Ontario.
Earlier, when we were doing concurrence for the Ministry of Natural Resources, I alluded to and quoted briefly from the Armson report of 1976. Mr. Armson is now the chief forester in Ontario with the Ministry of Natural Resources, seconded from the forestry faculty at the University of Toronto.
I quoted briefly from remarks made at the federal level by the assistant deputy minister of Environment Canada, where they are of one mind as to what we must do to save the forest industry in Canada, and particularly in Ontario. I am not one who thinks that if one has a problem one just throws some money at it and the problem will go away, but in this case we have been so indifferent.
We were living under the false illusion that, as long as we kept cutting down trees, they would always be there. Instead of managing our forestry resources, we were mining them. We were not treating our forestry resources as an agricultural crop. We were not looking at them as something that was renewable. It was felt that was an infinite resource and, as long as one wanted to keep cutting them down and mowing them down, they would always be there.
We have had reports in this province starting in 1923 and going all the way to 1947, 1956, 1967, 1969, 1970, and in 1976 the Armson report I just referred to. If one takes the trouble to read them, there is a common thread running through them all saying, "Beware, you are going to be in trouble." Nobody paid any attention.
Over the weekend I read a book, Forestry and Forestry Education in a Developing Country: A Canadian Dilemma, by J. W. B. Sisam, who is the dean emeritus of the forestry school across the street. My purpose in raising it at this time is that I want to know whether there is going to be a commitment, I want to know whether there has been any dialogue instigated by this minister or by any other minister in the Resources Development policy field to indicate that he, in his responsibilities or those of his government -- specifically, has there been a pitch made by the Minister of Natural Resources to lend some credence to this whole notion of forest management agreements that will charge the licence holders with regeneration, proper management, silviculture treatment, all of the things we have to do to correct all of the sins of commission and omission that we have been guilty of for the last 60 years?
9 p.m.
If there is not a commitment, not only in human terms and in philosophical terms but also in financial terms, we are probably missing the last opportunity we have to save the forest industry in Ontario as we know it.
I want to quote from this book, dealing specifically with funding of the implementation of these forest management agreements.
"The funding of sustained yield forest management is undoubtedly the most critical factor affecting its success; apart, of course, from any serious deficiencies or constraints in connection with the technical aspects of the process.
"The overall cost will depend in part on how far the silvicultural process and related operations are carried, but in any case the basis of such management, the establishment soon after logging of adequate regeneration in terms of species and density, its early tending and subsequent protection, will involve a considerable outlay.
"It is this cost of establishing a forest, making efficient use of the site subject to sustained yield management, that is critical at the decision-making stage. The question then is, how and by whom is this to be financed initially and whether the funding should be looked upon as an investment, long-term, or an operating cost.
"Foresters themselves are divided on this last point, though there is increasing support for the second alternative as the situation becomes rationalized, having in mind an expected increase in the demand for wood in the long-term nature of the forestry enterprise."
I am not going to read it all but I want to quote one other brief passage. It says:
"In an essay on the teaching of economic history in Canada, the late Harold A. Innes pointed out the difficulty of applying to a new and developing country such as Canada the economic theory that had been intended originally to meet the requirements of older, highly industrialized countries, noting that Canadians are obliged to teach the economic theory of old countries and to attempt to fit their analyses of new economic facts into an old background.
"The handicaps of this process are obvious. The only escape can come from an intensive study of Canadian economic problems and from the development of a philosophy of economic history or an economic theory suited to Canadian needs."
It goes on to say how the federal government benefits handsomely over the years from the exploitation of our forestry resources, and I am told that in Canada the income from taxes is in excess of $4 billion, and about 40 per cent of that accrues to the federal coffers.
Has there been any talk within his secretariat and with his colleagues, either the provincial Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) or the Minister of Natural Resources, as to how he is going to fund these forest management agreements?
I am not being overly dramatic. I could quote many sources -- some are professional foresters, some are economists, some are in industry, some are in the ministry -- who all agree that if we are going to do anything to turn our act around we have to do it now; we do not have too much time left.
I want to ask the minister, quite sincerely and directly, what kind of dialogue has there been within his policy field to lend credence to this idea of good forest management, treating it as an agricultural crop and ensuring we will meet the world demand for our products?
One talks about wheat, one talks about agriculture and all of the things we export. If one adds those all together, they amount to about half of what we realize as a result of the exports of our forest-related products. We are by far the largest exporter of newsprint of any jurisdiction in the world. If we lose this, the most precious of our resources, it will take the single largest and most effective component in our industrial sector right off the map.
I do not know why this government is not right on top of that, because the entire future of all northwestern Ontario depends upon it. If the minister would hark back to the Hedlin Menzies report in 1969, it reminds us that six out of every 10 jobs directly and indirectly related to the forest industry are not in northern Ontario where the resource is; six out of every 10 jobs are down here in southern Ontario where the resources that come from the north are processed.
In terms of the human resources, that is the professional foresters who manage that most important of our resources, the United States, with much less in terms of forested area than we enjoy in Canada, has 10 times as many professional foresters managing its forests. Where is our commitment to good forest management? What is our commitment to the last chance we have to at least begin, through these forest management agreements, to embark upon a realistic program of regeneration, of tending our forests on the basis of sustained yield to maintain and to improve upon our annual allowable cut?
I want to find out in very specific terms from the minister whether or not this government has even taken the trouble to talk about those things and to indicate there is a commitment on behalf of this secretariat, the Ministry of Natural Resources and this government to good forest management and to treating it as an agricultural crop.
9:10 p.m.
Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to this very important debate on the concurrence of this ministry. When we think of the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development, it conjures up visions of the green forests of Ontario, the clean lakes and rivers and all of those resources under the ground that cannot be seen. People all over the world think of Ontario and of Canada as that kind of wonderful, resourceful nation and province.
I am a little afraid that all that is left of the vision we had in the past and all that those people who do not know any better have now are those very colourful and costly brochures that various ministries of the government print in order to try to fool people that such is still the case in this province. The sad truth is that this is not the way it is. The fact is that with the clear cutting, with the tailing piles, with the poisoning of our rivers and lakes this government, which has been charged with this grave responsibility over all these years, has not been able to keep that vision alive for those of us who expected it.
It is very disturbing that this government is as bankrupt in strategy for our natural resources as it is in its economic policies. The truth of the matter is that such strategies do exist; there are various jurisdictions that in one way or another started 25 or 30 years ago with a very broad policy, particularly with regard to the forests, if I may just dwell on that for the moment, and I am sure the northern members will be well aware of what I am speaking about.
I have a feeling about this issue, because I spend a great deal of my leisure time in the north. I have hunted on the Harricanaw River on I ames Bay with the Cree Indians. I have fished in the rivers that flow into Hudson Bay. I have a small camp north of Temagami. I have a feeling about this country, and it is very sad to see what is happening after 40 years of no management and of mismanagement.
While the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) has been very specific about forest management as it relates to forest products, and I am absolutely certain he knows what he is speaking about, I would like to touch on a subject that is very closely related, because with good forest management we have good wildlife management. In those jurisdictions where they build firebreaks, where they see to it that their reforestation deals with pulp wood and woodlots for thermal generation of power, they also address themselves to wildlife management.
What a sad state of affairs it is in Ontario. We do not manage our wildlife; we manage the hunters and the fishermen. In other jurisdictions where they have addressed themselves to proper forest management, the game abounds. In some countries in northern Europe they are having a problem with too much game because they have had 25 or 30 years of good forest management.
Coupled with the kind of economic advantage of the forest industry products, we have that secondary involvement as it relates to our American friends, who used to come here literally in droves to hunt the deer and the moose and to fish in those lakes, particularly in northern Ontario. They do not see fit to come here in the numbers they did previously, because coupled with forest management was the responsibility of maintaining our lakes and rivers so they would reproduce.
Nature needs very little help. It gets none at all from this government in many areas of northern Ontario. Forty years ago, there was commercial fishing in the Niagara River and pickerel were caught there in individual fish traps, one or one and a half tons in an evening. They have completely gone.
I would think while the provincial secretary talks with representatives of the Ministry of Natural Resources he would also be closely coupled with the Ministry of the Environment. In order to do his job to protect natural resources, there would have to be a bigger commitment from that latter ministry. I am sorry to say that is not happening.
To get back to my original question to the minister -- and it relates to the very question the member for Lake Nipigon has asked -- after 40 years of mismanagement or no management, when is this government going to address itself to reforestation and to natural resource protection for the people of this province so we can envision again the kind of province it took over and was charged with the responsibility of 40 years ago? If we started today, I would hesitate to say what time it would take to return it to the state in which the minister found it when he was charged with that responsibility.
Coupled with the cause made by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk as it relates to our native people and the question the member for Lake Nipigon has asked regarding the forests of this province, my question to the minister is, when will he restore the wildlife and the natural resources that existed when he took over this responsibility? When will he start to replace that which he has lost to us and to future generations in this province?
Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in this debate on the concurrence in supply of the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development and bring to the minister's attention the need for co-ordinating programs to keep our agricultural industry alive and get our young people back on the farms to give them an opportunity to make the wheels of our economy turn again.
As the minister is aware, when agriculture is in trouble, the whole economy breaks down and everyone is eventually affected. We have seen what happened to the tobacco industry in southern Ontario this past year when it was devastated by frost on August 29. That is reflected in the overall economy of our country.
I picked up a news release today, dated January 28, 1983, and signed by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), which indicates that our deficit is up considerably because of increased funds for regional economic development and small business development grants and expenditure pressures due to tobacco crop losses. It also includes the revised fiscal outlook. It points out how important that segment of the agricultural industry is to our economy.
Our small farmers are losing the right to farm the land they love so well because they cannot get the proper financing to maintain those viable farm units. That has not happened just in the past year. It has been happening for the past two or three years. The minister is well aware of the desperate farmers who came to Queen's Park seeking assistance when the beef industry was in such dire straits. This government could not see fit to come up with programs to assist in keeping those farmers in business. This past year, when they had the opportunity of regaining or recouping some of their losses because the beef prices were able to bounce back somewhat, many of them have gone out of business.
9:20 p.m.
I would like to ask the minister if he is planning to co-ordinate a plan similar to the one being proposed and implemented in Saskatchewan, where new farmers who would like to acquire land would be provided with a rebate on loans up to $350,000 at eight per cent for the first five years and 12 per cent for the next five years. The Saskatchewan government estimates this is going to help 5,500 farmers.
The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food came up with a program last year to assist with its interest assistance program, and I believe it helped 3,000 farmers who were in difficulty. As has been pointed out by my colleague the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), many of them will not be able to take advantage of it this year, because the interest rates have already dropped. Would the minister be willing to assist in co-ordinating a similar program along with the federal government to help our young farmers to stay alive and keep family farms running?
I would like to give an example. There are two young farmers in my riding whose farm has been in the family for three generations. The two boys went to Ridgetown College and obtained a degree in farm management. The college is advocating that young farmers should not go back to the farms, because there is no future there. Yet these two young farmers would like to take over from their dad and continue to farm. Because of high interest rates of this past year, 1981-82, and the fact that their corn and soybean crops were devastated by frost, they are in farrow to finish in the pig business; and they have not overspent on fancy buildings, they just need some financing.
I hope this minister, who as the former Minister of Agriculture and Food has had a lot of experience in agriculture and is a farmer himself, will give some guidance to our present Minister of Agriculture and Food, who has not had all that much experience of farming as far as grass roots are concerned, on how to help a young farmer survive.
My colleague the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) pointed out that we have not taken care of our environment as well as we might have. I was talking to my father-in-law this past weekend. He lives in Hamilton and he can recall when Burlington Bay was a place where people could fish. The fishing was good, but in the past 40 years it has deteriorated. I know the former Minister of the Environment said one of his goals was to clean it up so that people could at least swim in the bay. I do not believe that is happening. I think a lot of work can be done to clean up our overall environment. When we are looking for programs to keep our young people and other people busy, I think we can look in these areas to make sure that a future is there for generations to come.
It is a pleasure to be able to participate briefly in this debate. I hope the minister will give some consideration to the agricultural industry.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to attempt to answer some of the questions put forth by different members across the way.
The member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) spoke this afternoon and he was interested in and concerned about the economic development of the agricultural land across northern Ontario. He mentioned my knowledge of that land. I am well aware of the capabilities of the lands in the New Liskeard area, the Cochrane area -- there is not as much as he suggested in the Sudbury area, but there is some -- and, of course, in the Algoma, Rainy River and Dryden areas.
I have had the opportunity of visiting farms in all those areas. I do not mind telling the House tonight, the farmers in those areas understand their land. In some of the areas, with the appropriate heat units, they are able to grow a better crop than some in southern Ontario.
I remember well a young Dutch immigrant in the Rainy River district who informed me he had bulldozed off some of the slashing during the winter months and, early in the spring, had tiled it. He harvested 85 bushels of barley per acre. I do not mind telling members that is a big crop of barley for any place in Ontario.
I can tell members similar stories about the New Liskeard area. When I was in the Cochrane area around July 25, I visited a farmer who had several acres of potatoes. He was taking the old year's crop out of his storage house to send to Timmins. He had a crop of strawberries the like of which I have not seen any place else in Ontario.
The capabilities in northern Ontario are there, but they must have drainage and assistance. The Minister of Agriculture and Food, through his office, has set up special projects in the New Liskeard College of Agriculture to give technical assistance to those farmers.
The member for Nickel Belt questioned me on the wetlands. As I recall -- I did not get a copy of Hansard -- he left me with the impression that he felt there should be an environmental hearing respecting drainage. I do not mind making my position quite clear. The day that a regular farmer has to go for an environmental board hearing before he can tile his agricultural land is a long way off as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Stokes: That is not what he was talking about and the minister knows it. He made that abundantly clear. It is unfortunate that the minister did not check Hansard, because that is not what he was talking about.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: In my estimates I listened very carefully and that is the interpretation I put on his remarks.
Mr. Stokes: The minister did that during the regular estimates. He was wrong then and he is wrong now.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order. The minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: I just want to repeat, as long as I have my position --
Mr. Stokes: He is imputing motives and he is distorting the facts.
The Acting Speaker: The member has the option of rising on a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: As long as I have my position, I have no intention of interfering with any farmer who wishes to drain agricultural land.
Mr. Stokes: Neither does the member for Nickel Belt.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: I am going to do everything possible to assist them, which our government has done.
The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk brought up many interesting matters. His first suggestion was about the possibility of a trip throughout northern Ontario. This was looked at by the government of Ontario. A great deal of thought and study went into a proposed trip.
Mr. Kerrio: They decided to go to Israel instead.
9:30 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: At the time the actual decision was to be made respecting the trip, the government of Ontario was in the midst of planning a restraint package and felt this was one area where money could be saved for the people who are directly involved and who are already there. In my present role, I have made many trips to several areas of north and northwestern Ontario.
The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk made mention of the tobacco crops and conservation authorities. He recommended a committee to look at native affairs. Other members mentioned native affairs as well. My obligation in regard to native affairs is to co-ordinate the activities of other ministers and direct responsibilities for native affairs.
I have a copy of the order in council: "The Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development be designated as the minister with responsibilities for native affairs. The responsibilities of the minister related to native affairs shall be defined as follows: To develop Ontario corporate policy, to co-ordinate interministerial policy development programs, delivery and special corporate projects, to co-ordinate corporate communications, negotiations including tripartite negotiations and mediation process with native organizations, Indian bands, federal and other provincial governments and personal and corporate entities and to monitor ministry policy developments and program delivery."
Mr. Nixon: There was a federal meeting today.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes, my deputy is in Ottawa today and tomorrow laying plans for the federal-provincial conference.
The member for Prescott-Russell brought up the notice of the advisory committee on the Alfred College of Agriculture and Food Technology and the fact that it consisted of some 11 people, all males and no females. I will bring this to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I thank him for bringing it to my attention.
He also went into the ARDA agreement at length. He mentioned that the original ARDA agreement ran out. He did not mention that it ran out at the end of March 1979. At that time, the government of Canada signed the new agreement with our neighbours but left Ontario out of that agreement. That agreement was signed in mid-December. I believe December 16 to be the date but I am only speaking from memory.
The federal government would not honour any of the drainage done during the period between the end of March and the middle of December. I personally had many meetings with them and tried to show that farm drainage was important to the farm people and could not wait for the government of Canada to make up its mind to sign the agreement.
In the areas of southeastern Ontario covered by that agreement, during that period about $2.4 million worth of drainage work was done. As the member knows, the government of Ontario pays one third, the government of Canada agreed to pay one third, while the local area takes care of one third of the drainage assessed against the agricultural land. In those early months when it was not covered, I personally went to the member's area, as he knows, and announced the government of Ontario would pick up the one third for the government of Canada.
We were up against a very close deadline. The municipalities had not gotten all their farm tax rebate applications in. I did have some money left over. If the member remembers, and I believe he was involved, we set a specific date by which they would have to have their applications in to qualify so we could get it through under that current year's operation. The municipalities co-operated fully. We paid $800,000 which should have been paid by the federal government.
In response to the member's further suggestion that we do something to assist farmers in that area, that was a five-year agreement. I was one of the signatories to that agreement. The government of Canada will not budge in any way, shape or form. The government of Ontario still put up their one third.
There are some problems, as the honourable member says, about the river area and the necessary approvals, but from the briefing I had last week I understood that most of those problems were being worked out and many drains were on the way; this was the information I was supplied with. The member may well bring my attention to some others, and I hope he will, but I want to restate that the government of Ontario does pay its one third. There is no limit on that.
The member for Lake Nipigon brought up some very important points. He pointed out that he has 22 reserves in his area, and I know he is fully aware that I also have some native people in my home riding. I have Walpole Island and the Kettle Point Indian Reserve. Between the two of them there are 2,500 people. Adjacent to me is the Sarnia Indian Reserve, which is in the Sarnia member's riding, and Middlesex has reserves too. I do have a great deal of dialogue with those people. They are special people; they do deserve special consideration.
I think the member is aware that last summer I spent several days travelling in the north. I was in the northern part of his riding. I visited some of the reserves and met with the band councils to get the facts about the problems they were facing on a firsthand basis.
The member mentioned the fishing agreement, which the Minister of Natural Resources went into in quite a bit of detail this afternoon. I was at the signing in Ottawa. The Minister of Natural Resources had received a telegram the day before from the government in Ottawa, signed by the two ministers, pointing out that we really did not have authority to sign this agreement and at the same time noting that some several months earlier an agreement had been signed by the tripartite process that we would have the fishing problem settled by mid-summer. That was again extended until the middle of November.
The Minister of Natural Resources pointed out that day to the two federal ministers that he was ready to sign the agreement using whatever authority the government of Canada felt he enjoyed. He did question the two federal ministers on the background of the telegram he had gotten the day before, and they did not have any answers. The legal people they had requested were not in the audience, and I believe they felt quite embarrassed. I know the opposition members will not believe this, but I certainly felt sorry for them. The two ministers had acted on advice from their legal people, but they were left sitting at the table and their legal people were not there at the time to support them.
With respect to the forest management agreements, forest management agreements all come before cabinet and are fully discussed. Each one is ratified by cabinet, and at that time we have our input into them. I know this was talked about a great deal during the estimates of the Minister of Natural Resources, who is actually responsible for them.
The member for Lake Nipigon also asked me how many staff members we have. I recently had a statement put together. In 1978 the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development had 93 staff members; in 1979, they had 76 staff members; in 1980, they had 63; in 1981, they had 58; and in 1982, they have 60.
9:40 p.m.
To help explain some of that increase since I went over to the ministry, the minister who was there before me recognized that our ministry was not playing, in his opinion, a big enough role in dealing with the native people. He asked his cabinet colleagues to give him authority to expand the ministry in order to be of more assistance to the native people, and he got approval from cabinet to expand the secretariat. We now have a director, Ms. Judy Clapp. She has an assistant, a secretary, and we have hired legal counsel.
The member for Lake Nipigon wants to know what dialogue there is when the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture starts something. My staff are in from day one. They follow right through with whatever the program may be and I get reports, not on a daily basis, but as there is activity. I am not sure I have answered all of the comments --
Mr. Stokes: What about the upcoming constitutional dialogue of first ministers?
Hon. Mr. Henderson: I do not think I am giving away cabinet secrets but in my position I have been at several meetings, most recently about two weeks ago, with our Premier (Mr. Davis) and all of the native organizations. We spent the afternoon from three o'clock on. That was about two weeks ago. I could look in my diary, but I do not think a day or two matters that much.
Mr. Stokes: What did you talk about?
Hon. Mr. Henderson: We talked about the position that Ontario should take when we go to Ottawa for the first ministers' meeting in the middle of March. We got the opinion of the native organizations. I must tell members, those people are reasonable if they are dealt with in a reasonable manner.
We agreed on the approach that we would take. I do not feel at liberty to present that here tonight. I do not think that would be fair to the native people if they want to go back and test it. But there has been regular dialogue along the way. Again, I believe it was a week ago last Wednesday, whatever that date was, and went on from the afternoon into the early part of the evening.
The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) suggested that our natural resources are all gone. Were those not the member's words?
Mr. Kerrio: No, no; I said they were mismanaged.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: Oh, I thought the member said they were all gone.
I listened to the honourable member and one or two others. I will take the member back into the natural resources area of this province for the almost 40 years -- he says it is over 40; I would suppose I am the only member here tonight who really drew votes in that 1943 election, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was too young.
Mr. Nixon: No. I had my licence and I was drawing votes. You did not draw enough; we won Brant, all right.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is older than I thought he was.
The socialists had a great day that day too, I am sure he will remember. But I do remember the day in 1943 quite well.
Mr. Nixon: It was August 4.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: If he looked at the agricultural field --
Mr. Stokes: What did they have, 43 in '43?
Hon. Mr. Henderson: Well, they had enough to form the government, the Tories did. It may have been a bit of a minority. I well remember June 4, 1945, and June 11, 1945, too. We did not do quite as well that day, did we? That was the federal election. The feds have never done quite as well as the provincial Tories, but they will, give them a date.
The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would have no trouble agreeing with me or supporting me when I say the average farm in Ontario, during the past three decades, is putting out about twice as much as it did in 1950.
Mr. Nixon: And only half as much as we could.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: I well remember reading in the paper three months ago the 30-years-ago news where one of the best farms in my county was producing 55 bushels of wheat to the acre. It was the best crop in the county that year.
Mr. Haggerty: And they got a higher price for the grain than they do today.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: I will come to that, just give me a minute. That wheat was produced with pretty cheap fertilizer. That wheat was produced, not that particular field, with horsepower at that time. There were still a few horses in Lambton. The farmer actually made more clear dollars at that time on an acre of 50-bushel wheat than he does today on an acre of 100-bushel wheat.
We have the policies of the government of Canada respecting energy. I know my Liberal colleagues do not like to hear this but if they came down to Sarnia and could recognize the problem in the petrochemical industry, they would recognize that the federal Liberal government is all done. It just does not have a future left. Its energy policy has tripled the price of fertilizer.
Mr. Kerrio: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: You have just recently arrived. I want to explain to you, sir, that the minister is in the process, supposedly, of answering questions that were put to him by the member for Niagara Falls. They had nothing to do with farming. They had nothing to do with the Petro Fina involvement. They had to do with the ravaging of our forests, the mismanagement of our forests and the clear-cutting. If the minister would only address himself to those questions I would appreciate it.
Mr. Haggerty: He cannot blame the federals for that.
Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of privilege, but it was interesting nevertheless.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the honourable member being upset.
Mr. Kerrio: I am not upset.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: He is just as disappointed in his colleagues in Ottawa as the rest of us are. It is really a serious situation, but for a gentleman like him to be defending them is shocking.
Mr. Bradley: Were you in Winnipeg this weekend?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes, last week. I had a great time there.
Mr. Bradley: There is no order out there.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: The members never saw a convention that equalled it.
Mr. Kerrio: Oh, yes, we did.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: The members never saw the equal of it. The member was involved out there even though he was not there.
I dug out an old jacket that I had not had on for two years. Imagine that.
Mr. Eakins: And the minister lost his vote.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes, I lost my vote. I do not mind.
Mr. Eakins: Mr. Clark lost, so you won.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: No, no, I supported Mr. Clark.
I was really upset when I got there. I started looking through my pockets for a badge. That is how hard up the Liberals are getting. The badge said: "Support Turner." Think of that. It was a badge like that when Trudeau was their leader.
Mr. Speaker: Really, this has nothing to do with concurrence.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, it really does, with all due respect.
I remember March 17 two years ago. I remember being at the Peterborough airport when the leader of the Liberals came in. Mr. Speaker was there that day. That badge was actually Mr. Turner from Peterborough. That is who it was. It was a big badge for a big man. I have carried it ever since because I was so proud of it.
The member for Haldimand-Norfolk suggested we are not doing enough for the farmers. I believe the member does not tell his farmers everything we are doing except where it is beneficial. He tells them then and only then. He has forgotten the $55 million that we lent to the junior farmers at five per cent interest and is still out there. He has forgotten that we have a tile drainage fund. He has forgotten the $8 million or $9 million that we pay out as a one-third subsidy for municipal drainage.
9:50 p.m.
He has forgotten -- no, he has not forgotten the crop insurance; a great amount of it went into his riding. I forget how many millions, but he would not forget that. He has forgotten the 75-million tax rebate. He has forgotten the farmstead improvement fund. I could go on to mention such things as the farm adjustment program and the beef stabilization program. I am sure that if he looked at all these programs and used them as an election issue, he would elect our Tory member out there, which we likely will.
I have attempted to answer these questions. I know there are some I have not answered. I recognize that. I will read Hansard and I will attempt to answer --
Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I want to point out to the minister that there are three other provinces, New Brunswick, Quebec and Alberta, that are co-operating with the Farm Credit Corp. in rebate programs administered by those provinces. This minister and this province have not seen fit to do that. That is the point I am trying to make: our young farmers do not have the same privileges as the other young farmers in Canada.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: I am glad the member brought that up. He is new in this House. He is --
Mr. Speaker: I think he had finished with his remarks. We are waiting for you to wind up.
Hon. Mr. Henderson: If the member were to go back to February 1969, he would see the government of Canada agreed it would be the lending officer for all the agricultural areas of Canada. We are still honouring that agreement.
I will read Hansard and if there are other questions that need answering, I will certainly attempt to do it at a later time.
Resolution concurred in.
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) regrets he is not able to be here tonight, since he is fully involved in the work of the standing committee on administration of justice downstairs.
It is very difficult to order our affairs so that some of the members do not have a duplication in duties, but he has asked me to bring to the minister's attention one or two items he thinks are of particular importance in this concurrence, and I have one of my own. I will try to be as brief and succinct as I can. However, it is seven minutes before 10 p.m. when we begin this debate.
My colleague particularly asked me to bring to the attention of the minister a letter from the principal of Ancaster High and Vocational School. The letter concerns an accident involving a school bus and an anomaly in the law of the province which the principal is anxious to have cleared up. The letter is directed to the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) and is dated January 19, 1983. It reads:
"Dear Dr. Stephenson:
"On the evening of January 18, 1983, Julie Barlow, a student at Ancaster High and Vocational School, was involved in a serious traffic accident on Highway 53 in Ancaster. She, along with her team-mates and coach, were returning from a volleyball game at Orchard Park Secondary School in Stoney Creek on a Travelways bus. The bus was proceeding west on Highway 53 and stopped at the intersection of Highway 53 and Southcote Road to allow Julie to disembark.
"This intersection is controlled by traffic lights. Julie, upon leaving the bus, walked in front of the bus and started to cross the highway. She was struck by a vehicle travelling in a westerly direction as it approached the green traffic light. My assumption is that she felt confident in crossing the highway, expecting the school bus flashing lights had been activated.
"The Highway Traffic Act, in section 151(6), states that subject to subsection 7, the driver of a school bus on a highway, when he is about to stop the school bus for the purpose of receiving or discharging school children or mentally retarded adults, except at a stopping place where a signal light traffic control system is in operation, shall actuate the red signal.
Quoting further from the principal: "My concern relates to the portion of the act which does not permit the bus flashing lights to be activated where a signal light traffic control system is in operation." I will end the quote from the letter at that point.
The principal goes on to point out that there is a tendency for students, in this case even a secondary school student, to be confused, particularly when he or she is used to being able to cross directly in front of the school bus upon disembarking. The fact that the lights of the bus are not activated when there is a traffic control light is either not fully understood by the students or perhaps is a failure in our regulations to properly safeguard our young people.
The member for Wentworth North asked me particularly to bring that to the attention of the House, and I feel sure the minister will have a comment to make about it.
The second thing I want to refer to is something that was raised in question period a couple of weeks ago by my colleague the critic for Transportation and Communications. It has to do with the minister's decision that R-class permits for motorcycle riders will be granted without the novice motorcyclist demonstrating any on-bike skills.
I understand the minister himself is a motorcyclist, that he has imported a six-axle motorbike for his personal use and that he has achieved a good deal of expertise in this connection. Probably in his circumstances, it is one of those 4,000-cc bikes they are just developing.
Hon. Mr. Snow: Four hundred.
Mr. Nixon: No. That would not get the minister up the lane, but it might be appropriate.
It is clear the minister either made the decision himself or supported the decision of his officials that the requirements for a beginner's licence for motorcycles would be reduced and no on-bike skill would have to be demonstrated. Perhaps it was because he himself was going for his licence at that time.
The minister received letters from a number of people at the time that decision was made, indicating the concern people expert in the use of motorcycles were expressing in this connection. One of the ones I have been reading about was from Kenneth J. Morgan of Mississauga. A copy of his letter has been available to the minister and to others.
He wrote to the minister on May 26, 1982, as follows: "Let me from the outset say how dismayed I am to find that your ministry has removed any need for a novice motorcyclist to demonstrate any on-bike skill before being granted an R permit. As an individual heavily involved at a professional level in motorcycle safety, I strongly believe this will lead to even more significant increases in injuries and fatalities among first-time riders."
Since that time, the statistics associated with injuries and fatalities have been made public by the ministry, and they indicate a tremendous increase in fatalities, to such an extent it is almost an epidemic.
The minister himself is anything but careless in this connection. I am prepared to grant that. I know his motivation is of the best, but in this instance it seems to me he has proceeded with a decision, against the advice of people expert in the field, which has produced these catastrophic results.
At the time the question was asked, I recall there was not a full answer. The member for Wentworth North, and I support him in this, felt it was a matter that should be brought to the attention of the House, since it is quite possible this change in the requirements that was made in error about a year ago should be reversed in an effort to save the lives of many of these young people who this time next year, unfortunately, will simply add to the horrifying statistics associated with accidents and deaths in this connection.
10 p.m.
The third point I want to raise is one the minister is familiar with. It involves the possibility that his ministry, through the Ontario Highway Transport Board, may grant a licence to an American firm, Roadway Express of Akron, Ohio, to take over the licences that are currently held in Ontario in the name of Harkema Express Inc. of Brampton.
This Ontario firm has held extensive licences permitting the utilization of transport traffic in southwestern Ontario for a good long time, but it has not used these licences for a year and a half. As a matter of fact, the business has largely been in abeyance, with only the licences themselves being of significant value to the American firm.
We understand the American firm, one of the largest in the world, is anxious to get the right to run its trucks over the roads of southwestern Ontario and avail itself of this rich, lucrative, profitable business, which is already well handled by many of our own indigenous transportation companies.
It has appeared before the Foreign Investment Review Agency, under the control of the government of Canada. Since it is a foreign firm, an American firm in this instance, it was thought it should have the approval of FIRA before there was any thought it would become an active firm in Canada here in Ontario.
I am led to believe that after a lengthy period of hearings and deliberations, FIRA has --
Hon. Mr. Snow: There were no hearings.
Mr. Nixon: After a lengthy period of deliberations, FIRA has acceded to the firm's request to come into this country. There is some thought that this might be a quid pro quo to allow our Canadian truckers to make a fuller utilization of American trucking opportunities.
We do not want our truckers to be prohibited from driving their own rigs down into the United States as long as they pay the proper fuel taxes and have the proper licences, which are a very onerous contribution to local expenses in that connection. But our own truckers feel they should not be, in a sense, sacrificial lambs -- I think that was the way they described themselves in this connection -- for some sort of trade policy of the government of Canada.
It really lies with the Minister of Transportation and Communications in Ontario to save them from such a situation. It is obvious the Harkema licences, which have not been used for a year and a half, should be considered defunct and that the American firm, if it wants to use our roads and have the right to truck in southwestern Ontario, should have what we in South Dumfries call a hearing de novo before the Ontario Highway Transport Board. There should be no thought of it taking over an established licence procedure.
To the credit of the board and of the American firm, Roadway, it has been agreed that such a hearing should be undertaken, but I feel there should be a ministerial statement of policy that will make it clear that the firm is simply not going to take over some sort of a licence which must be considered functus at this time. I hope the minister can clear that matter up and, unlike the officials in Ottawa, come down firmly on the side of the protection, if a Liberal can use that word in the connection, of our own businesses, which I think is well merited.
The last point I want to make is a personal matter. At my own expense, I am quick to say, I had the great pleasure of having a trip for about 25 days in Italy. During that time my wife and I and two friends rented a car and drove extensively through that country. We had a very fine experience indeed. The gasoline was $4 a gallon. I think Joe Clark was responsible for their energy policy during the time there was that rapid expansion in cost. I cannot explain it any other way.
I want to tell the minister, and anyone else who might want to listen, that I was deeply impressed with the quality of their road system and the expertise of their drivers in general. I was so impressed that I had the research facilities associated with the library look up a few statistics for me. I want to put them before members briefly, because I know the minister is anxious to get this approval some time this week.
There are about 57 million people in Italy, as opposed to about 8.5 million in this province, but they have almost 300,000 kilometres of road, compared with our 160,000. The library provided me with additional statistics on the number of kilometres of controlled-access highways and so on.
Going from major city to major city and even through some of the roughest terrain we could find anywhere, including north of Lake Superior, I found their roads to be of excellent quality, absolutely amazing, at least as good as the roads we have in some parts of the province and far better than those we have in most parts.
To be fair, on many of their controlled-access highways they have a toll system. This is something we considered in the province at the time various states of the union were considering tolls, but we rejected that, calling upon all the citizens to contribute to the costs of roads whether or not they used them. Italy went the other way, and whether or not you agree with that method of finance, they have great roads.
The thing that interested me was their approach to the control of traffic, and particularly speed limits.
Hon. Mr. Snow: I understand that would interest you.
Mr. Nixon: Well, perhaps the minister does, because I know he goes around in a propane- powered, chauffeur-driven limousine; so he does not have to worry about speed limits. I hesitate to recount again a few occasions in my dim and distant past when I went slightly over the speed limit. I guess you lose points for that now. But I assure you, Mr. Speaker -- and I invite any member to phone the minister's administrative assistants to verify this -- that at present I am as pure as the driven snow in regard to speeding points.
But just like the minister of transportation in Italy, the minister here has been successful, along with his predecessors, in getting his colleagues to allocate hundreds of millions of dollars to an excellent road system. It is not designed for the 70-kilometre-per-hour speed limit he has imposed on Highway 2 from Ancaster to Brantford or the 100-kilometre-per-hour limit on our very best highways. Instead, in Italy they have realized that the commitment to modern transportation allows them essentially to have no speed limit at all. They realize that the people who are licensed under a careful procedure in that country are sensible enough to drive at the speed that the facilities would indicate, and in most instances the traffic goes at about 130 to 140 kilometres per hour over these excellent roads.
The minister, with much fanfare, many years ago reduced the speed limit on the roads of Ontario to a level where almost everybody driving is breaking the law all the time. The only time they are not breaking the law is when one of the black and white cars with a red cherry on top is right in front of them or when they see him up ahead and they slow down when they pass. They have even removed any fairness on this basis by making the Fuzzbusters illegal -- not that I would ever use or ever did use such an instrument anyway.
My point is that in Italy they are much more realistic, and frankly I thought the drivers were excellent. They are alert, and in 25 days of driving I never saw anything even close to an accident. That is why I thought I should get some of the statistics, because over in Italy they have almost 18 million automobiles, buses and other vehicles, for a grand total of almost 24 million vehicles. In this province we have about 4.75 million vehicles --
Hon. Mr. Snow: Oh no, more than five million.
Mr. Nixon: These statistics, I should tell members, are from the Ontario Ministry of Treasury and Economics, Ontario Statistics, 1981, page 568, and they were provided by the library. The minister undoubtedly has later statistics, and I hope the extra miles he is talking about are miles of Highway 403 extended west of Brantford, because the highway is a little slow for what I think is needed in our area.
I was interested to see that when it comes to the total motor vehicles per capita in Italy, they do not have quite as many as we do. They have 415 vehicles per 1,000 population, and we have 555 per 1,000 population; so the vehicle density, other things being equal, is greater here.
But when we look at certain other statistics, there are figures that I found quite interesting when you consider the roads are of uniform quality. Some of the turns on the controlled-access highways over there are perhaps a little sharper than we have. Some of the lines of sight are a little shorter but the drivers do not sit there with a heavy foot on the accelerator to get from A to B. They are driving all the time and are alert and somewhat more challenging than perhaps we are here.
10:10 p.m.
The ratios of accidents to population are quite interesting. The number of fatal accidents per capita in Italy is 1.3 per 10,000; in Ontario, 1.5 per 10,000. Total accidents per capita are 4.8 per 1,000 in Italy; 22.9 per 1,000 in Ontario.
There has to be some explanation and I am not fully aware of why that occurs.
Mr. Stokes: It is called ice and snow.
Mr. Nixon: Okay, that may be so. But when one drives in the mountain areas of Italy even in the summer there is ice and snow and one has to look out. If one is driving down the Po valley from Milan to Rimini, there is not much ice and snow there but there are many parts of that country where the driving must be very similar to the driving north of Lake Superior. There is a substantial difference in these statistics, particularly for fatal accidents and accidents in general, and I found it extremely interesting.
I have often thought our approach to speed limits in this province was unrealistic. It reflects some sort of Victorian approach that the minister brought with him when he came to the ministry. We have committed hundreds of millions of dollars to modern highways and we are continuing to commit millions of dollars to keep our well-trained Ontario Provincial Police sitting out there in their black and white cars trying to catch somebody when actually everybody is speeding.
I drive on the Queen Elizabeth Way almost every day. Today as I came off Highway 403 on to the QEW, a panel truck came up behind me going like mad. I thought I had better get out of his way. Imagine my surprise when this panel truck turned out to be an OPP truck with all of the aerials and everything. I thought it was one of those weird wagons that some of the younger element drive at those speeds.
I thought I had better look into this as they were rapidly disappearing in a cloud of smoke. There were no red lights going or anything like that. I undertook to find out how fast he was going because I thought it was my personal duty so to do. Unlike the minister I do not drive a large propane-powered car with a chauffeur.
I was going about 130 kilometres per hour, doing my duty to try to find out what that cop was doing. He was still accelerating beyond me. I do not usually give up under those circumstances but on this occasion I thought the better part of valour was to take my foot off the accelerator because I knew I would have a chance to tell the minister about it personally. The licence number was AA1 454, not that I want to get anybody into trouble or anything like that.
I find it very strange that all of us who commute on that road day by day drive at speed limits that are really, in many respects, slower than is safe in many circumstances. Every day I am aware that almost everybody on the road is breaking the speed limit until somebody in a black and white car, doing his or her duty, culls one out of the flock, pulls him to the side of the road and slaps him with a fine for $30 or $40, maybe plus $28 for not wearing a seatbelt -- although that is never me -- and he loses a couple of points. One thinks, "What is this adding to the safety of the roads in the province?"
There used to be an argument that we were saving gasoline as well. I know the minister is anxious to make his friends in Alberta look good and they are just aching to sell us some more gasoline. A lot of people have converted to propane or have rational, efficient cars, like the car I drive, which is not a gas guzzler, and there is so much gas around we do not know what to do about it.
I would just say it is time we had another look at our approach to safety on the road. Here is another jurisdiction that has an entirely different approach from ours, and its safety record is better. I would suggest it is time this minister stopped being such a conservative and started being a progressive.
Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon). I am quite convinced he is the best pinch-hitter in this House, bar none, and he is probably the most frequently used pinch-hitter we have in any of the three parties. I always enjoy the pithy nature of his comments and also the increasing Latin mentality he is developing as a result of his tour in the cradle of civilization. I do not know if the good burghers of Brant-Oxford-Norfolk can handle it, but it is interesting to see how the cosmopolitan Italian influence has affected his outlook.
I must also confess I am a little bedazzled by the sartorial splendour of the minister as he sits across from us. I presume Otto Jelinek went out and celebrated and bought him a tuxedo for the evening. I hope there are no sanguinary traces from Friday night's events on any part of it. If there are, he has them suitably hidden from public purview.
I have a few brief comments on three or four items. The first one is the question of Roadway, already alluded to by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. On this side, we have some concern as to the process and effects of the takeover. The mention of Roadway compared to the existing carriers in Ontario is somewhat akin to General Motors taking on Bricklin. I hope we will see a full and open hearing before the Ontario Highway Transport Board.
It is ironic to see something like this happening at the worst possible time for us when the economy is down. We have layoffs and bankruptcies, the prospects for 1983 are dismal, and here we have a major firm moving into the market, probably not adding anything new in sales, but providing tremendous competition for our domestic carriers. I am not a protectionist, but I must confess I have some ambivalence about the whole thing. I do think we have to give special consideration to our domestic interests and provide for a full and open hearing. I am glad to see that event is taking place.
I hope the minister will address the criticisms being levelled at him from several corners, that this is part of an overall deal. I think our interests have been sold out in the interest of reaching an agreement with the Americans on some of their protectionist policies that they rescinded recently. If that is not true, I ask the minister if he would explain pourquoi we are supporting the federal government and the Foreign Investment Review Agency on this policy.
The second item is of more topical concern. There was an item in the Toronto Star last week. Now that February will be upon us in another hour and 40 minutes, I will mention that the headline in the Star article was "'Licence Sticker Lineup Will Be Chaos,' Frustrated Agents Warn." The lead paragraph says, "This year's lineup for licence plate stickers, an annual headache for Ontario motorists at the best of times, is likely to be the worst ever, disgruntled agents have predicted."
It talks about the new computer system now functioning, and about a certain ministry official. "One agent said, 'That is the way they operate. They want to keep everything a big secret. You say black, they say white. You say yes, they say no. I just have to throw up my hands in the air in frustration." Since the ministry has spent over $12 million installing some 320 computers across the province, I ask the minister, first, what is the basic problem they are encountering, and second, what exactly is he doing so that we do not have to face the chaotic situation that several of his agents are predicting in that story?
This leads me to the question of the licence plates and the uniform fee. It has been a particular grievance of mine that, while we support the concept, the way it was done was a revenue grab by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). For the owners of four-cylinder cars, it means a 60 per cent increase in what they are paying, and for motorists across northern Ontario, it means a 250 per cent increase in what they will be paying. This comes from a government that is preaching the virtues of nine and five and telling us all about restraint. Coupled with the 17 per cent increase in Ontario health insurance plan premiums, it makes one wonder if the government even takes itself seriously when it imposes increases of that sort.
10:20 p.m.
Another item I would like to raise with the minister is the question of licence plates for the disabled, an initiative we support and on which we complimented him when it was introduced. However, there seems to be a problem with its being honoured by some of the municipalities.
It is okay to have this provincial licence plate but one has to obtain a permit from the municipality in order to have it recognized in that municipality. In the overall region of Metro Toronto one has to get three, four or five such permits. Or, if one comes from out of town, say Oshawa, Lindsay, Cobourg or wherever, the municipal permit is not recognized in Toronto. One may have, say, the Cobourg municipal permit and the provincial one, but get hit with a ticket if one goes to Etobicoke.
Surely that does not make sense. There must be some way to have the provincial licence plate apply uniformly across the province. Surely we can get the municipalities to recognize that. Let us have universal recognition for the disabled and not expose them to double- or triple-ticketing because of petty jurisdictional squabbles and disputes.
I would ask the minister if he would address that question and tell us what he is doing. I think it is unfortunate that when he makes a major initiative on behalf of the disabled, the intended effect is sabotaged because of lack of support and co-operation in the municipalities.
The final item I would like to raise is the question alluded to by my pithy colleague from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, and that is the question of the accident rate involving motorcycles. I believe the statistics for 1982 show that for the first two thirds of the year, the accident rate was up something like 18 per cent and the fatality rate was up 80 per cent.
We discussed in the estimates that these increases have been ongoing over, I believe, 1979, 1980, 1981 and now 1982. Part of it can be explained by the increase in the number of motorcycles on the road and their increased use by different segments of the population, particularly the young. However, we have a problem, and what is the minister doing about it?
I believe my colleague the member for Wentworth raised the question of the testing procedures in this province. I think he talked about using the community colleges as an avenue to educate and to improve on the testing procedures before anybody gets on the road. I would like to ask the minister what he is doing to improve the whole question of road testing for potential motorcycle drivers in the province. What is he doing to make them more rigorous, more meaningful and to try to cut down on the continuing pattern of higher accident rates and increased fatalities?
I think we could learn something from the snowmobile clubs, which have performed rather admirably and responsibly in moving in to fill the vacuum there. I think the results will speak for themselves in the coming years.
I also would raise with the minister whether or not he is satisfied that the motorcyle manufacturers in this province are really doing enough in terms of their contribution to safety and safety programs. My colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), who is an avid motorcyclist as well as a fan of motorcar driving, pointed out to me an article that said that in the United States the motorcycle manufacturers contribute $2.50 per unit in terms of their contribution to safety campaigns and to help improve the whole situation vis-à-vis safety and usage of motorcycles, whereas in Canada the figure apparently is a measly 50 cents per unit.
In other words, as their contribution to the safety problem on the other side of the border, the American manufacturers spend five times as much as their counterparts spend in Canada. If those figures are correct, that is totally inadequate and unacceptable for us in Canada. If those figures are correct, surely the minister should lean rather heavily and use the full bulk and power of his office on the manufacturers to do more as their contribution to solving the problem.
I look forward to the minister's comments on those four items.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to speak after the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) has spoken, because we always end up saying almost exactly the same thing. Two of the subjects I wanted to speak about tonight, especially that dealing with the disabled, were discussed by the honourable member.
I am particularly concerned with problems affecting the disabled, being the critic for Community and Social Services. The member for Cornwall said what the minister is doing is fine except that there must be some way to override that kind of nonsense we are going through right now where municipalities refuse to recognize the permits that others issue.
I would like to suggest the reason all this is going on is that the ministry did not implement this a number of years ago, so municipalities went out on their own to establish a form of permit system. Therefore, they were there ahead of the minister and that is what caused the problem. Notwithstanding that, here we are in 1983 with those new licence plates for the disabled at the same time we have those municipal permits.
In my own area, I represent a part of Ottawa-Carleton as well as the constituency of Prescott- Russell. Somebody from outside the city of Ottawa may be going into town to do some shopping. Prescott-Russell, for instance, does not even have a parking sticker for the disabled. I have a lot of difficulty imagining somebody leaving Rockland to go to Ottawa, and going into the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton to pick up a permit.
Remember, it is a disabled person who is trying to do all these things. If he were able, the thing would be an aggravation; if he is disabled, it is that much worse. He goes to the 25th floor or whatever it is in the offices of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, obtains one of those permits, gets back into his car and goes downtown to park. It is that ridiculous. He may only go to Ottawa a few times a year if he lives outside the Ottawa area.
A further complication is that we do not have any mechanism in effect in our municipalities to recognize not only these parking stickers from other jurisdictions in our own province, but also out-of-province and out-of-country licence plates. For instance, if a tourist comes here from New York state with a licence plate identifying him as disabled, parks in an area designated for the disabled and ends up getting a ticket, I would say a lot of the public relations work we are doing for tourism purposes is quickly destroyed with that nonsense going on.
I am looking forward, as the member for Cornwall was, to hearing a response to this.
On the issue of the computer terminals that the ministry has, I hear the waiting time in Ottawa is in the vicinity of between one and two hours, depending on the time of day, to get a licence plate. Yet we are nowhere near the period when licence bureaus are supposed to be busy. That is a difficult situation. I do not know what the minister is going to do in the next four weeks to accommodate that. He is probably going to have to have an extension to that period for different reasons from those normally given. This time it is simply because his system cannot cope.
I have had our research office look into the computer the minister bought. I want to draw his attention to the MTC Mohawk equipment. I have brought this issue to the minister's attention many times before. From the information I have, apart from the fact it does not seem to be running adequately, he seems to have bought a computer not made in this country. The information I have is that, of all the bids he received, this was the one with the smallest amount of Canadian content. As a matter of fact, there was one Canadian company that had as much as 84.4 per cent Canadian content and he bought the other one that had much less Canadian content.
I have brought to his attention as well a computer he bought for the GO Transit system. He bought it from Rohm Canada Inc. The computer was apparently made in the United States. This was at the same time his government was giving grants to those computer firms or for that high technology centre in Ottawa.
I have one final point in that area. We have already brought to the minister's attention other areas such as advertising for Yamaha snowmobiles and all kinds of other things the government did that certainly do not seem to reflect the fact he is encouraging Canadian content. I believe that snowmobile incident was in the constituency of Victoria-Haliburton, if my memory serves me right. He had specifically said in his tender that he wanted a Yamaha-brand machine.
Hon. Mr. Snow: That is not right and you know it.
Mr. Boudria: That is right. I would like him to come out with information that says otherwise. That type of thing is really disheartening. The whole business of these computers coming from outside the country, and then being defective on top of that, is a little hard to swallow.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would like to report to the minister the condition of Highway 17, and part of it is because of the unusual weather we have had. For the first time ever, I have seen road crews out in January with propane torches trying to fix some of the potholes on Highway 17 between Schreiber and Nipigon.
I know the minister has that stretch of road on the drawing board for upgrading, along with the section of Highway 17 east and west of Nipigon, but I want to tell him we are going to lose some cars in some of those potholes.
Mr. Speaker: I direct the member's attention to the clock.
Mr. Stokes: That is all I wanted to say. That is Highway 17, 25 miles west of Schreiber and east and west of Nipigon.
On motion by Mr. Nixon, the debate was adjourned.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, I would like to ask if we could revert to motions so that we could make a motion to allow the justice committee to sit.
Mr. Speaker: May we revert to motions?
Agreed to.
MOTIONS
COMMITTEE SITTINGS
Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the standing committee on administration of justice sit tomorrow afternoon and, if necessary, tomorrow evening to consider Bill 215, An Act respecting Crown Trust Company.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 10:32 p.m.