Journal des débats 1986-janv-20 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would inform the members that last Friday the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) raised as a point of order whether it is in order that written questions 183 to 189, inclusive, refer to the political affiliation of persons appointed to a minister's personal staff or to the public or civil service.

Whether or not a person has been a candidate for a particular party or a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, or of the House of Commons of Canada, is a matter of public record. I therefore can find no basis on which these questions can be considered out of order.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have a statement that, unfortunately, is not quite prepared at the moment. It is on its way. We had some mechanical problems. Might I ask, please, that we revert to statements when it arrives? At this time it is not ready for delivery.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other ministerial statements? If not, would the House agree to revert to statements when this one arrives? Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

Mr. Grossman: I might begin, not by asking a question but by inviting the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) to indicate to the House what will be the subject matter of his statement.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It will deal with the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee. Copies of the statement have just arrived. Perhaps we could revert now.

Mr. McClellan: Add five minutes to question period.

Hon. Mr. Elston: No, I do not think so. We have had only 35 seconds.

DRUG SUBSTITUTE

Hon. Mr. Elston: Late last week the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) raised several issues in this House with respect to the operation of the ministry's Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee and the number of meetings this committee has held since our government took office.

The Leader of the Opposition also raised a more specific question about Dr. R. E. Sager's complaint to the Ontario Medical Association about the generic drug metoprolol and about why my ministry had not taken any action after having been informed by the OMA of the matter.

I will now respond to each of those questions. First, regarding the number of meetings held by the DQTC since July, the Leader of the Opposition says his information is that the DQTC met in July and then again on December 3. He requested an explanation of why meetings were not held more frequently. The DQTC did not meet in July; it did meet on September 4 and September 18, and a subcommittee met on September 12. Meetings were subsequently held on October 2, November 6 and December 4, for a total of six meetings.

For the benefit of the members of the House and the opposition leader, I want to put this question of DQTC meetings to rest. Therefore, let me provide the following additional information. During 1985, the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee met 12 times and there were two meetings of subcommittees, for a total of 14 meetings. During 1982, a year I know will be of particular interest to the opposition leader since he was Minister of Health for most of it, the DQTC met 10 times. During 1983, a year during which the member was still Minister of Health, the DQTC met again on 10 occasions.

I believe the facts show that the committee meets as frequently as required and when it has an agenda to discuss.

Regarding OMA representation on the DQTC, the opposition leader wanted to know why the OMA representative resigned in July 1985 and why a replacement had not yet been appointed.

First, I will make the point that there is no official OMA representative on the DQTC, just as there is no official representative from any other particular organization or agency. Over the years, however, to maintain good liaison with the OMA on drug-related matters, a tradition has developed that one sitting member of the DQTC would also be a member from the OMA'S committee on drugs and pharmacotherapy. Shortly after I became minister, I received a letter from the OMA stating that its current representative on the DQTC would be resigning because he was moving to Quebec. The letter also suggested a replacement for the departing physician. I wrote back to the OMA, thanking it for the contribution of the representative whose services the DQTC would be losing. I wrote that I appreciated its recommendation on a replacement. I also noted that changes and additions to the committee would be named when the terms of several members expired with the current order in council under which they were appointed.

It was my intention, as I informed the OMA in my letter, that several new appointments would be made to the DQTC when a new order in council was issued. This is the usual procedure. Appointments to the DQTC are not normally made in mid-term.

During 1985, there were 12 members on the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee. There were expert representatives from the fields of clinical pharmacology, family medicine, gerontology, rheumatology, pharmaceutics and hospital pharmacy. Eight of these appointments expired on December 31, when the order in council under which they were appointed ceased to be in effect. New appointments will be made before the end of this week.

There was another matter raised by the opposition leader, a matter that I believe is of particular importance because it is alleged to affect the health and wellbeing of several Ontario residents.

The opposition leader has said that I have been sent a number of case histories by the OMA, case histories submitted by several physicians in Ontario to the OMA's adverse drug reaction reporting program. In particular, a letter received by the OMA from Dr. R. E. Sager was cited as an example where no action was taken by me or the ministry.

On December 3, 1985, I received a letter from the OMA, along with attachments that the OMA's adverse drug reaction reporting program had received from several Ontario doctors. In these attachments, the physicians noted alleged side-effects for a number of patients who had been switched from brand-name drugs to generics. Upon receiving that letter, I immediately asked the DQTC to consider and assess these physician concerns at its next meeting.

One of the attachments received from the OMA was from Dr. R. E. Sager regarding the drug metoprolol. In that letter, he listed reactions noted on patients in April and May 1985. Dr. Sager's letter to the OMA was dated June 14, 1985. I received a copy of Dr. Sager's letter, as I mentioned a moment ago, on December 3.

If, in the expert opinion of the OMA's adverse drug reaction reporting program, the continued sale of certain generic drugs represents a life-threatening situation, one would assume that a six-month time lag would not be permitted before it was drawn to my attention. However, Dr. Sager's letter was included along with others that were sent to me. The attachments were included together to question the efficacy of a number of generic drugs. All the drugs mentioned in the OMA letter will be considered by the DQTC at its next meeting on Friday, January 24.

2:10 p.m.

On this matter, I wish to inform the House that I have telexed the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare to ask whether the health protection branch of his department has received any complaints about metoprolol. I have also asked him to confirm whether there are any problems regarding its safety and efficacy. These decisions are a federal responsibility and I have therefore requested a speedy reply from the federal minister.

I was speaking to the federal minister by telephone this morning and personally brought to his attention the questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I trust that my comments today will satisfactorily respond to the queries raised in the House last week.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: My question is to the Minister of Health. This morning he mentioned on the radio that under his proposed legislation, "Ontario doctors do indeed have the right to opt out of the system and to deal financially directly with their patients if they wish." That is a direct quote.

He also indicated he was not going to do very much until some action was taken. Nonetheless, could the minister indicate what contingency plan the ministry might have in the event that doctors opt out en masse?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is the duty of this minister to respond to situations as they arise and when the event occurs we will take the necessary action. At this moment, en masse opting out has not occurred and I am quite confident it will not occur.

Mr. Grossman: Nothing has occurred over the weekend that would give the minister any reason to justify that kind of confidence. Might I remind him that under the current system, with about five per cent of the bills being extra billed in this province, it takes the Ontario health insurance plan computer about three to four weeks to process a claim and refund patients who have paid directly to their physicians.

Surely the minister has to acknowledge that if anywhere near the number of doctors who over the weekend threatened to opt out do opt out, the number of claims to the ministry by patients is going to be a staggering number out of the 60 million each year. That has to mean the OHIP computer will back up so significantly from the current three to four weeks, to perhaps four or five months, that the minister ought to take some steps to ensure that the elderly, the senior citizens and those who will begin to pay for their health care up front are reimbursed in a shorter period of time.

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Grossman: Is it the minister's position --

Mr. McClellan: Maybe the doctors should wait.

Mr. Grossman: Let the minister answer. I know the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) wrote the policy, but let the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) explain it.

Is it the minister's position that there will be no backlog from the OHIP computer, or is he not prepared to worry about it until it happens?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member knows full well that we do have to take into account what might occur but we cannot respond to something that does not exist at this time. We have not received any notices to indicate there will be a mass opting out and the minister, as well as the rest of the members in this House, will understand that opting out requires a notice to us of three months, to begin the first of the month following the day on which we receive it. If we receive notice today, we would have 90 days. Then we would start the first of the following month to allow that to happen.

That gives us time to respond and, to be quite honest, it also provides the physicians with the opportunity to put in place their new administrative procedures, new accounting procedures, hiring extra staff to put the bills directly to their patients. It is a convenience not only for us but also for the medical practitioner.

The member can understand that each of us, whether it be government or people who opt not to participate in OHIP, will have several steps to take to ensure we can address the needs of our patients. That system is in place now and we will use the 90 days to prepare for dealing with patients --

Mr. Grossman: So you will do something.

Mr. Rae: The record will show that the leader of the Conservative Party thinks the patients should pay up front. Does the minister not realize --

Mr. McFadden: Get off it.

Mr. Rae: I know it hurts. That is exactly what I heard him say. The record will show what he said. He is the one who talks about paying up front. No one else does.

Can the minister take steps --

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of interrupting the tag team there, I want to say that what I indicated --

Mr. Speaker: Is this a point of privilege?

Mr. Grossman: I want to clarify the record. It is an extremely important point. The point is, very simply, that I did not say patients should have to pay up front. I said that as a result of the tag team they were going to have to pay up front, and we object to that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: The real tag team is the Ontario Medical Association and the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman).

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That's midget wrestling.

Mr. Rae: I will not comment on that remark. Can the minister give us the assurance that in the event of a policy of direct billing of patients by doctors, encouraged by the OMA and apparently by the Conservative Party of Ontario, it will be the policy of the government to state very clearly, either by way of amendments to the bill that is before the House or in some other way by regulation, that patients will not be expected or required to pay physicians who have opted out of OHIP until such time as those patients have received their money from OHIP?

Hon. Mr. Elston: One of the reasons we decided that the legislation before this House would allow opting out is that many doctors had indicated to us that they preferred to deal financially directly with their patients. They have also assured us that their direct financial dealings with their patients will not disadvantage the patients. In other words, they will not take advantage of the need of those people for health care.

From that standpoint, I think it is very appropriate for any patient who is dealing with the physician on a direct financial basis to make representations directly to his or her physician and the necessary arrangement will be made. I know the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) would probably be happy to intercede on their behalf, as I would be, if there are difficulties.

The direct billing option is there and we will respect that option.

Mr. Grossman: Let me say to the minister and to the other end of the tag team that while they are mesmerized by the public opinion polls on this issue, we are mesmerized by the public interest and by protecting the patients against the impact of the legislation before us.

The minister acknowledged a moment ago that doctors will take three months to adjust their billing patterns, meaning that they will be ready to charge their patients when they come in for services. He has acknowledged that there is going to be massive difficulty with the OHIP computer, because it currently --

Hon. Mr. Elston: No, I did not.

Mr. Grossman: The minister will have an opportunity in a moment to stand up and allege that the OHIP computer will be able to refund the cheques within three or four weeks. If he believes that, he will have an opportunity to stand up and say it.

May I say to the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Please ask the minister.

Mr. Grossman: What steps is he going to take to alleviate a circumstance in which patients today go to the Princess Margaret Hospital and many other hospitals for cancer and other treatments without ever putting their hands in their pockets and, as a result of the legislation he introduced and the response of the OMA, those same patients are going to have to pay up front and wait for his computer to reimburse them? What specific steps is he going to take to make sure the reimbursement occurs immediately?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I could not hear clearly all the points that were made, but if the member is suggesting there is going to be an upfront charge at Princess Margaret, I will take that as notice and I will get back to the House with respect to that.

Mr. Grossman: I did not say that. I said make sure they do not put their hands in their pockets.

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think that is what he did say. He said they would be charged up front for their services.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is what he said.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I may be misinterpreting what he said. If that is the case, I apologize. The reason there was an agreement to have a 90-day notice to withdraw from OHIP was that it would allow everybody, including physicians, to make arrangements to gear up for billing patients directly and for us to reimburse patients directly. If anything comes to my attention about mass opting out or whatever, we will share with the members of this House what steps are to be taken. At this moment, that has not occurred. Since that is so, we will wait to see what happens with the opting-out question.

COURT RULING

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Attorney General. He has denied my request for an appeal of the sentence given to a three-times convicted sex offender in Brantford. This case should be appealed. His contention that the circumstances are mitigated by the fact the "assault...was very brief in duration" is both absurd and unacceptable. How does the Attorney General feel about a man convicted of his third sexual offence against a child being back on the street the very day of his conviction?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I undertook to provide an answer to my friend and I did so. It is rather lengthy. I provided it by letter dated January 16, 1986. The man who made the determinations in this case is one of the senior crown attorneys in the county and the one who is charged with the victim assistance program and rape counselling.

In this case, after consideration of the circumstances and consulting with the victim's parents, he made a joint submission to the provincial court judge in support of the penalty that was selected. It was selected and recommended by him, and the provincial court judge accepted it, because the assault in question, though clearly wrong, was, as these things are counted, relatively minor and short in duration.

The accused had agreed to plead guilty in circumstances where there was no corroboration and a very substantial risk that no conviction would be obtained if the matter went to trial. The crown attorney consulted with the victim's mother and advised her about what he proposed to do. She accepted it, pleased that her daughter would not have to give evidence; it would have been traumatic for her to do so.

Therefore, having reviewed the entire matter at some length, I have concluded this is not a case in which an appeal is desirable. If it is the pleasure of the House, I will be delighted to table the rather lengthy letter I sent to the member for Brantford about it.

Mr. Gillies: I am curious to know when the seriousness of a sexual assault is determined by its length. In the judgement given in this case, psychiatric counselling or treatment was not even ordered for the offender. It was left to the discretion of the parole officer whether the offender would get any treatment.

I cannot understand why the Attorney General does not see this as unacceptable and outrageous, as I do. Will he appeal this totally unacceptable and inadequate sentence? As part of that appeal process, will he at least ensure that the offender is ordered to have psychiatric counselling so the children in my community can be protected from this sort of person?

Hon. Mr. Scott: My friend is wrong on one count. The learned judge in this case directed that the accused, as a condition of the term, should undergo any psychiatric counselling his probation officer regarded as appropriate.

Mr. Eves: That is not what he said.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Yes, but the innuendo in his question was that the judge had not made any order. That is the routine order a judge makes because a judge does not have precise knowledge of the kind of facilities available or the services required by the accused in a particular case.

What will happen is what normally happens. The probation team will determine the kind of psychiatric counselling required and, pursuant to the judge's order, the accused will undergo it.

Mr. Rae: Can the Attorney General confirm that, because of the nature of the submissions made by the crown and the fact those were made in conjunction with defence counsel, it would be very difficult in the circumstances for the crown to be heard to appeal from a sentence the crown itself recommended?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I think that is correct.

Mr. Gillies: The leader of the third party is right. There was consultation between the crown and the defence because the case was plea bargained. I question the appropriateness of that in a case like this. The interests of the community, the child and the offender -- everybody's interests -- are not being served by this decision.

Will the Attorney General appeal? Further to that, with the legitimate concern about the trauma of putting a child victim on the stand, will he review the recommendations that went to the Badgely committee, saying the testimony of a child victim should be able to be presented in another way? It should be videotaped or presented without the necessity of the child having to take the stand.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am reviewing it and I undertake to my honourable friend to review the provisions of the Badgely report. Of course, that focuses on one of the problems that existed in this case. There was no corroborative evidence. There was a real risk that the trial judge would find that this child was of an age where her testimony required corroboration before there could be any conviction at all. The very great danger, and why there were discussions in this case that were brought to the attention of the learned trial judge, was that there was every prospect there would have been no conviction had the case proceeded to trial.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I go back to the statement the minister made where he talked about the fact that revenue for the insurance companies was down significantly as a result of changing interest rates. Is the minister aware that when we combine the figures of property and casualty insurers for the first, second and third quarters of 1985, we find an 8.1 per cent increase in net premiums earned and yet a 41.5 per cent increase in net income, in profit?

Is the minister aware of those figures, which show a very significant increase in profitability over the last three quarters? In light of that fact and of the fact that it is the ordinary people of the province who are bearing the cost of this dramatic increase in insurance costs, will he agree today to bring in legislation that will effectively freeze insurance rates until such time as the Slater task force has reported to this House, so we can get on with legislation that will protect the consumers of this province?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The leader of the third party asked me two questions: (1) Was I aware of the profits, and I say yes to that; and (2) am I prepared to bring in legislation, and I say no to that.

Mr. Rae: Can the minister explain why the Liberal Party, both federally and provincially, has been prepared every time wage rates went anywhere above the rate of inflation to bring in across-the-board controls on wages? Why has it been prepared to do that with respect to wages either in the public sector or the private sector; but when it comes to a short-term crisis from the point of view of the consumer, why is the minister not prepared to intervene on behalf of consumers, introduce a freeze that will effectively protect people who are driving, and the cities and the hospitals? Why does he not protect those people instead of just sticking up for the insurance companies?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The leader of the third party referred to statistics. He mentioned that they related to the property and casualty insurance industry. I said before -- and I will say it again -- that there are some 150 insurance companies doing business in Canada; of those, only 20 are dealing with third-party liability. He is comparing apples with oranges. He should take a look at the 20 companies that are dealing only with liability insurance and their profitability.

Mr. Runciman: The member for York South is talking about the profitability of insurance companies and the appropriateness of some of the rate increases. I know my leader asked at least a couple of weeks ago whether the minister has approached the superintendent of insurance for a comment from him on the appropriateness of the rates and perhaps the desirability of the superintendent making a public statement comparable to what occurred in Quebec on the appropriateness of the rate increases. Has the minister done that? If he has not, is he prepared to make a commitment to this House that he will do so and report back to the assembly?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: One of the terms of reference of the task force is to look into exactly that situation.

I would like to correct a press report. The task force is being headed by Dr. David Slater, but it has on its staff a general counsel and a general manager as well as the superintendent of insurance. They are going to look at that and they will make suitable recommendations.

Mr. Rae: When the minister announced the task force in the House, he said in his statement there had been rate wars; that was false. He said investment revenues were down; that has not been proved. He said court settlements were too high; then last week he said that was not true, either. That is zero for three.

In the light of that record and of the fact that people are paying rates that are 500 per cent, 600 per cent and 700 per cent higher than those they were paying before, why does he not introduce a short-term freeze, which the minister has the constitutional power to do, and which will effectively protect the consumers of this province until such time as Dr. Slater has had a chance to bring in his report?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As a former educator, I tried last week to give the leader of the third party a lesson in insurance economics. I have to say he got an A for attendance but an F for comprehension.

He stated I was wrong in saying insurance investment had dropped. That is not a matter of conjecture; it is a matter of fact. He is wrong when he said that insurance premiums were low. That is not a matter of conjecture; it is a matter of fact. He is wrong when he said I said insurance awards were not a problem. I said it was not the total problem.

PENSION REFORM

Mr. Rae: I will give the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations a chance on another topic, the question of pension funds and what is happening with pensions in the province.

The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), who, alas, is not with us today -- we all feel the loss -- made a speech that was reported in the press with respect to pension reform. Can the minister tell us why, in spite of the announcements the Treasurer made with respect to the policy of the government of Ontario, 53 per cent of the people working in the private sector will continue to have no pension plan at all? Why is that intolerable situation being allowed to continue?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The Treasurer made a statement on Friday with regard to pensions. He stated we will be bringing forward pension reform legislation in the next few weeks. There are very serious problems in dealing with it, because we have to try to get some consensus across the country so pensions can become portable. We are addressing that, as well as concerns with respect to the indexing of pensions and what happens when surpluses are removed. As we bring forward the legislation, every member in this House will have a chance to comment on it.

Mr. Rae: I am baffled by the minister. He said he needs to reach a consensus. Is he not aware that British Columbia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are not part of this consensus? Is he not aware that on the question of pension surpluses, which we have been raising for the last two weeks, the Treasurer said some changes were going to be brought in that would be different from this so-called consensus? In fact, there is no consensus.

What is stopping the government from recognizing that literally hundreds of thousands of part-time workers, most of them women, are not covered by any private pension plan and will continue not to be covered, and that more than half the workers in this province do not have a private pension?

What is the minister going to do to change that situation? What is he going to do to ensure that 50 per cent of the population who today do not have a private pension will have one by June 1986?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The pension reforms will be brought forward in a matter of weeks, and at that point those problems can be addressed. They may be covered in the legislation we are proposing. We are looking at it now and we are bringing forward the material. When that happens, the honourable member will have a chance to ask questions.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary?

Mr. Rae: We now see the depth of concern from the Tories.

Press reports over the weekend said that companies generally heaved a sigh of relief that the proposals did not index private pensions to inflation. This is from a story quoted in the Toronto Star with the headline, "Pension Reforms Affordable and Fair, Companies Say."

Is the minister prepared to table in the House the cost projections from his ministry and from the Treasury with respect to indexing? Can he confirm that a senior adviser on pension reform, Mr. Ilkiw, also stated recently in the Toronto Star that inflation protection per se does not involve extraordinary costs? Does the minister not feel the pensioners of this province should be protected against inflation, that as the value of the funds is increasing, the value of their pensions should be increasing as well?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We are in favour generally of looking at increasing the protection for inflation for pensioners, but that was one of the greatest stumbling blocks we had in trying to get some consensus. Rather than stall the whole thing, we decided to proceed with the pension reforms that we are going with now, and we will work towards those other aims in the future.

Mr. Grossman: The government could go it alone on inflation protection; it is just that it will not.

Mr. McClellan: Just as the previous government did not.

Mr. Grossman: Is the member for Bellwoods proud of those answers? If he does not like them, he knows what he can do; but the members of his party do not want to put their jobs on the line for the pensioners.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

DRUG SUBSTITUTE

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Health. In his statement with regard to drug quality, the minister indicated that he called the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare today to do some testing. I say to the minister --

Hon. Mr. Elston: Come on. That is hardly what I said. I said I was speaking --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question.

Mr. Grossman: The minister will have a turn in a moment.

The federal ministry, unlike the Ontario ministry, moved in on Friday, after those issues were raised in the House, and began to do its own testing with regard to the drug in question. The minister acted today. The minister indicated in his statement that he was informed of this problem by way of a letter received on December 3. The minister's own statement indicates that the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee met the very next day on December 4.

With thousands of these pills being taken every day and with the concern expressed by medical practitioners in this province in a letter he received on December 3, why did he decide not to refer it to the meeting the next day -- it was not urgent like wine -- but was quite content to have that matter lay on his desk for six weeks until the meeting this Friday?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I made it quite clear that the letter from Dr. Sager was included with a group of attachments. Dr. Sager's letter was written on June 14. It went to the Ontario Medical Association and stayed in its offices until June 20, by indications on the letter. I can tell the honourable member that it was not deemed a serious enough matter, in that the OMA did not list it as one of the drugs in the main body of its letter.

Let me indicate very clearly to the member that since the OMA brought it as an example with respect to certain questions about interchangeability, the effort we took -- having received a letter on December 3 -- was to bring it forward to the first available meeting after that. The agendas of the DQTC are set and it meets as the need arises. It met on December 4 with its agenda for that day. It is meeting again this Friday, and we will review the recommendations it brings to our attention.

The other important item is that Dr. Sager's letter was addressed to the OMA's committee, which has a liaison with the federal authorities. If there was some urgency there, that liaison between the federal people and the OMA should have been tapped earlier as well because, as I mentioned in the statement, the question of safety of those drugs does fall squarely within the federal department.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: The Minister of Health is responsible for putting the pills on the shelf. He is responsible for assuring seniors that the pills are perfectly interchangeable. He received the information on December 3 and he did not refer it to the meeting on December 4. Was their agenda so packed he could not ask them to deal with the thousands of pills that are being taken by seniors? Is the minister prepared to stand in the House today and say to thousands of senior citizens that this particular pill is perfectly interchangeable with the brand-name product? Is it yes, or no?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The question of interchangeability was addressed at the time it was added to our list by the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee, a committee that meets occasionally as the member will be aware. They met occasionally under his auspices. They are answering the questions as they come up with respect to interchangeability. They will be answering the questions with respect to this particular drug after their meeting on Friday. The safety of the people of this country with respect to drugs falls squarely under the federal authorities and our committee will be meeting with respect to these drugs this Friday.

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. We understand there are reports that the blob found on the bottom of the St. Clair River last summer has not only resisted cleanup, but also is reappearing. Can the minister confirm whether the blob is reappearing?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will resist talking about the return of the blob. As the member will be aware from reports in the news media, some puddles of perchloroethylene have reappeared. She will recall that during the cleanup operation that took place under the auspices of Dow Chemical, supervised by the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario and Environment Canada, even while they were doing the cleanup at various places, one could see the perchloroethylene still bringing up other substances from the bottom.

I was asked: "The cleanup is finished. Does that mean everything is all right?" I indicated to people who directed questions to me: "No. We will continue, along with the federal government, to investigate any potential sources to determine whether puddles continue to appear." Some puddles have reappeared. We have ordered their cleanup and we will continue to observe the bottom of the river at that point with a view to attempting to determine the source.

As the member is aware, the general scientific opinion has been that the perchloroethylene pulls up other traditional historical spills. She will also recall that I have said we should not rule out the possibility of other sources, and that is what we are looking at now.

Mrs. Grier: Does the minister not agree that the other source, which I think he is aware of, is the possibility of seepage from underground caverns? If that is the case, what action does he intend to take to ensure the seepage can be stopped?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We first have to determine whether that is the case. That is why I thought it was important to look at three potential sources. The first is historical spills affected by the perchloroethylene. The second is the potential for the material in many of the deep disposal wells or caverns seeping up into the river. The third is leaching from landfill sites.

We are observing all three. We have test wells that have been drilled very close to the river to determine whether these substances are making their way there. The federal government uses a camera to observe the bottom of the river to determine that. Our testing will continue. I can assure the member that if there is a recognition that the cause is something other than historical spills, we will take all appropriate action at that time to be involved in what I would consider to be a major containment.

Mr. Brandt: Will the minister confirm that the federal government has placed an apparatus on the bottom of the St. Clair River which will monitor whether there is any seepage, as was suggested, and I am sure almost hoped, by the member of the third party who raised the question?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: The member has raised that speculation without evidence on a continuing basis.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the member has already asked the question. Did he want to repeat it?

Mr. Brandt: Would the minister advise this House when that apparatus indicates whether or not it is old material that is being extricated from the floor of the river or whether it is seepage? Is he aware there is such an apparatus there at the moment?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I can say that while I am not aware of the specific apparatus that is there, I have been assured by the federal minister, in discussions with him and with federal officials, that a number of activities are being undertaken by the federal government to determine whether there is any possibility of seepage from sources that have been alluded to in the House.

There is also some suggestion the new puddles that have been seen there could well be bits of chemicals falling off the edge of the trench of the original Dow cleanup crater.

There are a number of potential sources, but I think what the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) is looking for is an assurance the Ontario and federal governments are exploring all potential sources and are prepared to take the necessary action if we find the results are not what we want them to be.

All members of this House would share my hope that it is not those deep wells leaking but, if it is, then we will take the necessary action.

SPRAY PROGRAM

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. He told a delegation from eastern Ontario on October 23, 1985, that he would make available $20 million to fight the spruce budworm and the gypsy moth. The breakdown was $15 million to fight the spruce budworm and $5 million to fight the gypsy moth in eastern Ontario.

Is he still going to honour that latter commitment?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: As it relates to the spraying that is going to take place, my ministry staff put forward the kind of program we are examining all across Ontario. It has to do with the spruce budworm and the gypsy moth budworm. Much of the determination is going to be made after we have the open houses that are taking place across Ontario. We are getting public input.

We certainly want input from members of the Legislature, but the proposal to use approximately $20 million to spray across Ontario is under consideration. Certainly, we are looking for input from the public to determine how, when and what we should use in those spray materials.

Mr. Pollock: The minister has committed himself to $20 million. Is that not correct?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would suggest the $20 million that was being contemplated, and was put forward as a program this year, would have to go for final approval to cabinet.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I cannot imagine any government doing anything without going to cabinet and being given the funding. I am suggesting to the member who asked the question that we are committed to keeping the forests green in Ontario and we are going to put that kind of submission to the cabinet after the open houses. I am absolutely sure this government is going to do what is in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There are some things they did not go to Management Board about.

Ms. Fish: Let us figure out if they still have a class exemption.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Someone forgot to go to Management Board over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: By way of supplementary to the minister, can he tell us whether this $20 million figure includes potential chemical spraying in eastern Ontario for the gypsy moth and the spruce budworm? Can he give us a breakdown of that figure with respect to which chemical sprays he is planning to use and how much they cost?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That presumption has been put forward two or three times by the leader of the third party. I am not suggesting we are going to use chemical sprays or any other kind of sprays. I am suggesting that we are going to have open house forums, something he should understand, and that the people of Ontario are going to decide. We are not saying we are going to use any mix until we have had 25 open houses across the province.

I will tell the honourable member something else that was very disappointing. We have open houses to ask people's feelings about this matter, and his man came up there with a press release that had been prepared before he had heard some of the experts whom we had appear before us, some fine gentlemen. He did not see fit to listen before he spoke.

Mr. Andrewes: Shame.

Mr. Bennett: I cannot believe it.

Mr. Martel: Did you prepare your booklet ahead of time?

Mr. Rae: Yes; did you prepare the booklet before you heard the expert advice?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was a very productive minute and a half.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. In view of the statement by the Treasurer in this House on October 29, 1985, that the review of gas prices in northern Ontario was well under way and could be expected to be tabled "in the very near future"; and in view of the comments of the Deputy Minister of Energy and his staff at our meeting on November 25, 1985, to the effect that the report would be submitted to the minister the next week, can the Minister of Energy explain why he stated in his leadoff speech to the standing committee on resources development in considering his estimates on January 8 that the report was not yet completed and had not been considered by cabinet and that the results were not ready and would not be published for about another month?

What is the hold-up in fulfilling the commitment to the people in the north that he made last spring?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: As far as the study is concerned, I was going on the best advice I had. I will tell the honourable member that, depending on when this House rises, and I think that will be the second week in February, I propose to present it before the House rises.

Mr. Wildman: The comments about the report's preliminary findings that the minister shared with the committee do not really give us much hope. Is the minister aware, for instance, that the price of regular gas in Red Lake is 61.3 cents and that in Sioux Lookout it is 53.8 cents? Those two communities are only 35 kilometres apart.

Can the minister explain, and will his report indicate, what he intends to do to ensure that communities that are this close, and receive their gasoline from the same source, will not have such differentials in prices and that the consumers in the north and in the northwest will no longer be ripped off by the oil companies?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member has already suggested that I shared just about all the information that was going into the report. I felt somewhat obligated to do so because of the promise I had made.

I take no comfort in the fact that gas prices are what they are in northern Ontario, and I am prepared to put forward that report just as soon as I have it in my hands. I hope to do that, as I said, before the House rises.

EXPO 86 PAVILION

Mr. Rowe: I have a question for the Minister of Government Services. Can the minister tell this House whether she has approved the purchase of Italian-made furniture for the Ontario pavilion at Expo 86?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I have not formally approved it, and I would refer the honourable member to the Minister of Transportation and Communications, whose ministry is responsible for Expo 86.

Mr. Speaker: Did the minister refer this to the Minister of Transportation and Communications?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I understand the question came from a manufacturer in the Oakville area some time during the noon hour. No contract has been awarded. I am attempting to gain further information on the terms of the tender call, which I understand was let by the previous government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is too bad some members are wasting time when members could ask questions.

Mr. Rowe: We have been informed that 240 chair frames and table bases will be purchased from an Italian manufacturer. Will the minister inform the minister responsible for government purchasing and give this House a commitment that Ontario furniture will be used in our Ontario pavilion? It may be a new place to stand, but the furniture situation does not sit well with our Ontario manufacturers right now.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I was aware there was some indication an Italian design was being suggested. As I tried to indicate in answer to the first question, this matter came to my attention over noon hour. We are attempting to secure further details and information. I will be happy to forward that to the member.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations referring to the right of life insurance agents to sell for more than one company. Under pressure from the Conservative member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), the minister said he would not tamper with the present system. Last Friday, he indicated to the Conservative member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) that he was considering some changes. Can the minister tell the House what changes he is considering and whether one will be the repeal of subsection 346(13) of the Insurance Act, which prohibits an agent from selling for more than one life insurance company unless he gets permission from that company?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I have been reviewing this whole policy. First, the statement that went out from the superintendent of insurance was not a new policy; it reaffirmed an old policy. I met with the life underwriters and I have heard their proposal. I have met with representatives of the insurance industry. I will be bringing forward a policy statement on that in the near future.

Mr. Swart: Did the minister receive, as the rest of us did, a letter from Gold Cross Insurance Agency that outlines the contrast in rates of the various companies for the same insurance coverage? I will not go into them as I am sure the minister has seen them. Does this not indicate that brokerage of life insurance agents and real competition is necessary for the benefit of the public in the sale of life insurance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member states things that are quite true, but I am sure he is also aware there are abuses by insurance agents who are not representatives of companies, writing insurance and rebating premiums to the people being insured. We are trying to come up with a policy that will solve those problems. We are working towards that and I expect to make an announcement shortly.

Mr. Gregory: Can the minister assure me that in the event he decides to make some change to the act regarding freedom of agents to deal with various companies, he will take into consideration the obvious difference between those who sell term insurance and those who sell so-called permanent-type insurance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As I indicated, we are going to take into consideration those aspects of the problem. My indication is that we will come up with a solution both sides can live with and support.

3 p.m.

MINAKI LODGE

Mr. Bernier: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation.

Mr. Mancini: Ask him about Minaki Lodge.

Mr. Bernier: It is coming.

Last week the minister announced the names of the new board of directors for Minaki Lodge, a lodge which the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said had no value. Can the minister inform the House whether he personally reviewed the qualifications and the backgrounds of those he appointed?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Yes, I did review the people who were appointed. They would not have been appointed otherwise. The people who served previously on the Minaki board served at a very important time in the development of that lodge and they served well. In the next phase of development of Minaki Lodge, I am sure the present board will serve very well indeed.

Mr. Bernier: In appointing Gordon McTaggart of Fort Frances, who was the campaign manager for the provincial Liberal candidate in the May 2 election, Dr. Peter Delamere of Kenora, who was the federal Liberal campaign manager for the federal member for Rainy River, Len Compton of Kenora, the vice-president of the Liberal association in that riding, and Velma Skillen of Dryden, a long-standing Liberal Party member --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I am waiting for the supplementary.

Mr. Bernier: It is coming. Can the minister assure this House that these appointees were not selected because of their Liberal Party connections? Second, can he give this House a valid reason to fire the previous competent board of directors?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I do not think anyone was fired. They were up for reappointment.

If the honourable member is going to review the backgrounds of certain members, why does he not review the backgrounds of all the members who were appointed?

Mr. Bernier: Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel).

Mr. Martel: How could the minister punish his friends that way by putting them in charge of Minaki? We want nothing to do with this.

Mr. Andrewes: I would not put that to the acid test.

Mr. Martel: Try us. We will turn it down.

OVERTIME WORKERS

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Prior to the Christmas break, the minister indicated he would get for us the figures on the number of hours of overtime between 40 and 48 hours worked by employees at Inco. Does the minister have those figures for us yet?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am glad the member asked that question. Late last week, the company provided figures for the period from January to August 1985. They are for the first full eight months. There were 210,448 hours worked in excess of the 40 hours per week. This represents 2.7 per cent of total hours worked during that eight-month period.

Mr. Martel: If we translated that into jobs, we would be doing all right in Sudbury and would not have the unemployment problem we have.

I want to turn to Falconbridge. There is some suggestion in Sudbury that Falconbridge exceeded its permit by 1,500 hours. If that is so, can the minister get for us the number of hours that Falconbridge employees worked beyond the 48 hours and the number of hours worked between 40 and 48 hours; the number of hours Falconbridge forced employees to come in and work overtime while we have massive unemployment in the Sudbury area?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Having completed one project, I am willing to begin another for my friend. I understand that at both Falconbridge and Inco a number of hours were worked in excess of 48, or 48, and 12 in the case of maintenance workers -- I am sure my friend understands the difference -- and in excess of the 100-hour automatic industry-wide permits.

We are beginning to review with the companies the reasons behind those additional hours that were worked. We will try to get the information about the 40 and 48 difference with Falconbridge as quickly as possible, but it does take some time to gather.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr. Partington: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development. The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America district council of Toronto and vicinity, sent the minister a letter on December 3 last year, pointing out some of the many inadequacies in his Futures program, among them wage problems, and pointed out a growing need for qualified carpenters. Why has the minister not yet responded? Does he not consider this issue important?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The member is correct; I have not responded to the letter yet. If he is asking me about the need for carpenters, I can tell him that the Futures program does not direct itself to any particular trade, need or occupation. It is directed towards skills that are relevant to the young person and the needs in the community.

Rather than answer the question here, I will speak to my staff about that letter and give the member a more detailed answer when I have taken it up with them.

Mr. Partington: The minister's program forces employers to pay only $4 an hour. The Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act and collective agreements require employers to pay 40 per cent of the journeyman rate, which is much more than $4 an hour.

The carpenters set out a simple alternative: let the employers make up the difference out of their own pockets. I ask the minister to accept this commonsense proposal, which benefits all concerned and salvages something out of this woefully inadequate program. Will he do this?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend raises the issue of whether the Futures program ought to be a wage supplement program, and clearly we have made a decision that it ought not to be a wage supplement program. Every participant in the program is paid the minimum wage, no matter what that minimum wage is.

One of the great difficulties with making it a wage supplement program is that it encourages employers to fill their labour force needs with Futures participants. The object of the Futures program is not to fill those positions that employers would otherwise create. The object of the program is to create long-term training opportunities, a one-year guarantee for young people, not to have a program that employers can use to fill their regular training requirements.

That is why we have not created a supplement program which would enable an employer who wants to pay an employee $8 an hour to hire someone and get a $4 subsidy from the government. That is not the intention of the program. Our intention is to assist disadvantaged young people who have difficulty finding placement and finding training for permanent placement.

MAGAZINE DISTRIBUTION

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Can he inform the House why a magazine known as Wine Canada, an excellent publication for consumers published here in Ontario, has been approved for distribution in every liquor store in Canada except those in Ontario? In spite of the fact that it is endorsed by the Wine Council of Ontario and in spite of the fact that at its meeting on November 1 the panel of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario approved its distribution, his ministry is prohibiting the distribution of this magazine, while magazines promoting foreign wines and published outside the province are allowed to be distributed in our liquor stores. Why?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The honourable member raises an interesting question, but his facts are wrong. We do not distribute any publications.

We are looking at this problem, but the member should be aware that what is being asked is that a public facility be used to promote a private commercial enterprise. We are looking at whether, if we do agree to it, it should be put out to tender or exactly how we should handle it.

Mr. Philip: Does it not strike the minister as strange that other commercial publications that promote foreign-manufactured wines and products can receive approval and be distributed in Ontario liquor stores, while this one, published in Ontario, with no vested interest in any particular product, is prohibited from being distributed?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It has a very definite vested interest. It is trying to use the clout of the LCBO to market its advertisements.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer given by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to a question concerning the sentence given a sex offender. This matter will be debated tomorrow evening at 10:30 p.m.

PETITIONS

FAMILY LAW ACT

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from Fathers for Justice, signed by 308 people, which reads:

"We, the undersigned, agree that the Family Law Reform Act should be changed to benefit both parties in a divorce, separation and custody action."

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 35 constituents from the riding of Burlington South, which reads:

"We, the undersigned parents and ratepayers of the Halton Roman Catholic separate school system, hereby petition the government of Ontario:

"To ensure the provision of appropriate and comparable secondary school accommodation for our high school youngsters, to take such steps as are necessary to acquire and to upgrade existing facilities as required, and to allocate the necessary capital funds where no suitable facility exists.

"Further, we advise the government of our belief in the integrity of a reasonably sized education unit and therefore request that a multicampus approach not be considered as a viable approach for secondary schools."

FAMILY LAW ACT

Mr. Ferraro: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 37 constituents with regard to Fathers for Justice, and it states:

"We, the undersigned, agree that the Family Law Reform Act should be changed to benefit both parties in a divorce, separation and custody action."

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 11, An Act to revise the Change of Name Act;

Bill 12, An Act to amend the Children's Law Reform Act;

Bill 13, An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved, on behalf of Mr. Charlton, second reading of Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, is one not allowed to have a few words on second reading if one wishes?

Mr. Speaker: Not on private bills. We have given it second reading. I suppose the House can reopen it, if it wishes to. How about making a comment on third reading?

Mr. Mackenzie: I want to put on the record that I have a suspicion some of the problems that originally led to this bill --

Mr. Speaker: Will you move third reading?

Mr. Mackenzie moved, on behalf of Mr. Charlton, third reading of Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Mr. Mackenzie: I will take only a moment or two. I think it is important that this be on the record. The bill is one the city wants. However, the city had originally asked for a slightly different bill and the ministry suggested some minor amendments, for reasons I am still not totally sure of. To get the legislation through, the city accepted the amendments.

This is a bill that allows actions when cars are abandoned or garbage piles up in back alleys, or where there is some dispute as to the ownership and the alleys are no longer maintained by the city. The problem I have, which I raised in committee, is that the amendment made by the ministry takes out the word "intrusion." I have had problems with constituents coming to me after not being able to get any satisfaction from either the local police force or the city aldermen, usually on the basis that they did not have the authority.

"Intrusion" can mean somebody has moved a fence into the alley or built a garage in the alley, but that word was removed. As I understand it, the bill now will allow them to move an abandoned car or garbage that is left in an alley. However, most of the problems I saw at the time had to do with people who had taken advantage of the question of ownership of the alleys by moving a fence or something into the alley.

While this will be a help to Hamilton, I suspect it may not totally answer one of the problems we have had. However, they have made it clear that they want it. They would like to try it and see what happens with it. On that basis, I support it on third reading.

Motion agreed to.

CHILDREN'S ONCOLOGY CARE OF ONTARIO INC. ACT

Ms. Fish moved second reading of Bill Pr17, An Act respecting Children's Oncology Care of Ontario Inc.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

Mrs. Marland moved second reading of Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga. Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

3:20 p.m.

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES (CONTINUED)

On vote 801, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, with respect, we have had two leadoffs, and I am not sure my colleague the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) has completed his leadoff. Is that correct?

Mr. Bernier: Yes. I am not finished yet. I adjourned the debate, but I have a few more points to make.

The Deputy Chairman: You may continue.

Mr. Breaugh: What we are trying to say is let the member for Kenora talk.

The Deputy Chairman: We will hear from him now.

Mr. Bernier: I will carry on from where I left off. As we continue the examination of this ministry's estimates, I believe when we left off we were talking about the importance of the northern roads program to northerners. As we go through these estimates, I hope the minister will give us details on the construction program his ministry is planning. It may be that he cannot give us the exact construction schedule or dates for the commencement of the various construction programs, but perhaps he could at least give us the date when the program will be announced, which we have been accustomed to receiving in the past.

We are very interested in the highway construction program for 1986-87. We are also interested in the winter roads program. I am particularly pleased the minister saw fit to continue the program I had established when I was in that ministry, because it does mean so much to the native people of northern Ontario. I am particularly pleased he has seen fit to assist the Windego Transportation Co. with its efforts to be self-sufficient in the transportation business in the areas of Muskrat Dam Lake, Rat Dam and Sachigo. We look forward to reviewing the expenditures for these programs for 1985-86.

I am sure the hefty budget cuts at the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs will hurt transportation development in northern Ontario. I hope the minister will use his so-called clout within cabinet to get back some of those funds, particularly for northern Ontario.

I want to deal briefly with northern agriculture. The minister has spoken broadly and intensively across northern Ontario about increasing the farming potential of that area. Shortly after he was made minister, he made a criss-cross tour of northern Ontario and became very familiar with the potential there in that field.

As we all know, the Liberal government has moved in a program of paying farmers to get out of the farming business. I hope it will go into a really major farm financing reform, including longer-term, low-interest loans, particularly for farmers in northern Ontario who have some unique problems.

On November 1, 1985, the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) asked the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) to explain a statement in a letter sent by the minister to the member regarding the Liberal campaign promise to equalize milk prices. I believe I went through this in the last session, so I will skip it.

I will move on to the AgriNorth program, to which the minister made repeated reference in his opening comments. It was developed, as he is very much aware, by the former administration with the object of improving agriculture in northern Ontario and catering to the needs of northern Ontario. I would like to know by what means the ministry plans to expand this industry, if it plans to do so, in view of the large cut in the resources development program of the ministry. I wonder how he is going to expand that program when he has received less financial support from his colleagues.

Another area of interest and concern for me and for my particular area is the concern we have for the development of a wild rice industry. The minister will be aware that we commissioned a wild rice study by Dr. Lee of Lakehead University. It has been an ongoing study at a cost of about $100,000 a year. It was originally commissioned for three years and we extended it for another two. We all realize there is great potential for this crop in northern Ontario. We want to know what the ministry plans to do with these studies.

Our party is very much aware that the five-year moratorium, set up at the recommendation of Mr. Justice E. Patrick Hartt under the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment several years ago, has run out. A new wild rice policy was approved by the former administration in its dying days. Can the minister bring us up to date on where that new policy stands.

We made it abundantly clear in that policy statement that the traditional harvesting areas of our native people would be and must be protected because they do have a religious connotation and they add to the economic wellbeing of the native people. There was no way our administration wished to interfere with that. However, there are thousands of lakes and areas that can still support the development of a wild rice crop in northwestern Ontario.

When we move from 19 per cent of the total production on the North American continent down to about five per cent or less, while we should be moving into a much larger percentage of the world production market, there is reason to be concerned. There are people in my area who are actually moving to the Minnesota area. They are going as far as California to develop a wild rice harvesting business. The minister will be aware that even the state of Florida is moving into the development of wild rice.

Something that was natural to northwestern Ontario has been let slip. There is room for some new thrust and direction.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: It is not our fault.

Mr. Bernier: We are looking to the minister for leadership. We hope to get it because he has all the studies and information at his fingertips. They were provided to him by the former administration.

Mr. McKessock: Why did the former administration not use them?

Mr. Bernier: We did not stay around long enough. The New Democratic Party and the Liberals moved us out so we could not implement Dr. Lee's policy.

I want to recognize the potential for economic development through wild rice. I understand the minister shares my belief in that respect and will have some information on what he and his ministry plan to do in this coming year with respect to that product.

Also, with regard to the AgriNorth program for 1985, we would like to know what the expenditures will be in specific areas for the coming year, such as land drainage, land clearing, new technology, risk-sharing, marketing development incentives, grain storage and handling, special incentives for distributing agricultural development and other farm production development. I hope the minister will have that information for us as we go through these estimates.

I was disappointed when the minister came down with the final name for his ministry and dropped the native affairs portion of it. He made some great fanfare prior to the election, during the election and even after the election that his ministry would incorporate the affairs of our natives within the ministry. Many of us in northern Ontario were expecting him to move in that direction because we thought he could assume this great and important responsibility.

I hope the main reason behind the dropping of this portion of his ministry was not because 50 per cent of our native people live in southern Ontario. I am sure that is not the case. Perhaps he could enlighten us as to why he was so adamant that native affairs would be in his ministry and now it has been dropped or left with the Ministry of the Attorney General.

3:30 p.m.

Since the minister has advocated that he is the watchdog for northern Ontario and the northern native people in particular, has he any plans to set up an agency within the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines? Under very active discussion when I was there was the establishment of a northern affairs officer who would serve the people of those vast, remote areas of northeastern and northwestern Ontario on a moving basis to give them the service they are entitled to.

We were prepared to move on that when I was in the ministry. There is a need for a roving northern affairs officer in the vast areas of the remote northwest and northeast. I hope we will hear something about that.

I want to go to another subject that concerns me considerably, namely, the minister's statement that the municipal advisory committees would be wiped out and replaced with development councils across the north. It will be of interest to all of us in northern Ontario, and particularly to members of this House, to learn just how these new councils will work and how well they will fit into the present system.

Will they have clout? Will they pass judgement on certain programs the minister has in mind? Will their recommendations be the final recommendations or will they go to the ministry and then the minister will make the political decisions he wants to make? The whole thing will break down if that is the case.

The minister talks about local input. If he sets up development councils, I hope they will be given the right and authority of which he speaks, and that there will be the openness we hear so much about to make decisions, and not have the head office in Toronto headed by the minister and the cabinet committee we heard a little about, but have not heard any more about in recent weeks, pass judgement and override decisions made at the local level.

Also in this area, I was interested to read that the assistant deputy minister, who formerly was in Kenora under the Ministry of Northern Affairs, will be moving to Thunder Bay.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Not to Hearst.

Mr. Bernier: It should be to Hearst. I could accept it more if it went to Hearst. I think this is an error.

I want to go back and refresh the minister's memory with respect to the setting up of the Ministry of Northern Affairs. He will recall that as late as 10 or 12 years ago there was a movement in northern Ontario to secede from the province. The minister's good friend, Ed Deibel from North Bay, of whom I am sure the minister is mindful, set up the Northern Ontario Heritage Party. Believe it or not, at that time prior to the setting up of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, he had something like 10,000 signatures from northern Ontario that made his party a legitimate, recognized political party.

Prior to that, there also was a bit of a movement in my own riding of Kenora. About 10, 12 or 15 years ago, I would go to meetings held in the Kenricia Hotel, where 100 to 150 people would meet once or twice a year to discuss the possibility of seceding to the province of Manitoba because of the feeling of alienation northern Ontario, particularly northwestern Ontario, had.

We took all that into the mix when we set up the Ministry of Northern Affairs. It was obvious to us that if we were going to keep that far northwestern region as part of this province, we had to make people feel part of this province, part of the decision-making process. On that basis alone, we established the office of the assistant deputy minister in Kenora.

I remind the minister that Kenora is some 250 miles west of Thunder Bay. That is quite a distance. It is further than Toronto is to Hamilton by about 200 miles. That will give him some idea of the distance.

The placing of that assistant deputy minister in Kenora actually destroyed Ed Deibel's organization. With the setting up of an assistant deputy minister in Sault Ste. Marie, with offices in Sudbury and Timmins, what happened to the Northern Ontario Heritage Party under Ed Deibel? It collapsed; it went away. There has not been a meeting in Kenora with regard to seceding to Manitoba since the Ministry of Northern Affairs was established. We dealt with the sensitivity of the people in that area. We recognized they wanted to be part of the decision-making process and to be close to Queen's Park.

The assistant deputy minister who is located in a small northern Ontario community is very important in the eyes of the public. As the minister said jokingly a few moments ago, he should have been moved to Hearst. I would accept that more than I would moving him to Thunder Bay. We have all kinds of senior civil servants located in Thunder Bay and the minister is going counter to what is happening in this country.

I want to relate a few examples to him.

Mr. Wildman: According to that theory, the assistant deputy minister should be in Blind River.

Mr. Bernier: That could well be.

The retail sales tax branch of the Ministry of Revenue has been moved to Oshawa from Toronto. It moved from a big centre to a small one. The Urban Transportation Development Corp., which was located in Toronto, has been moved to Kingston, to a small eastern Ontario community, to build up areas such as that.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: What about the road testing? It is still being done here.

Mr. Bernier: Most of it is in there.

Where is the Ontario health insurance plan operation? The general manager's office and the entire operation for OHIP has been moved to Kingston. The trend has been to move away from the big centres in order to bring the smaller communities into the mainstream.

Even the federal government has moved in this direction. The income tax branch for northern Ontario has been moved out of Ottawa to Sudbury. The Department of National Health and Welfare has moved its income security programs to Timmins. The trend is to move from the major capitals of this country and province to the far communities and provinces. The Department of Veterans Affairs has been moved to Prince Edward Island.

We will see what happens in other parts of the country about the desire for a breakaway. The Yukon is a long-standing issue. It wants to become a province. Cape Breton wants to break away from Nova Scotia.

The policy the minister has instigated of moving people out of the small communities will incite the people in northern Ontario to go back to that feeling of alienation again. They will talk about seceding.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I am moving two mining people to Kenora, two directors. Why does the member not say something about that?

Mr. Bernier: No. The minister needs senior people there.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: They are senior.

Mr. Bernier: An executive director is not an assistant deputy minister.

The minister should reconsider his position and look at what he has done to northern Ontario. Consolidating his senior people in the major centres is certainly not the way to go.

I was there when the former assistant deputy minister came forward with a proposal that he should move to Thunder Bay from Kenora. I do not buy the time that is wasted in travel. It takes about 40 minutes to go from Kenora to Thunder Bay. By having an assistant deputy minister located in Kenora, he has the feel of the small communities and the smaller centres. If he goes to cities such as Thunder Bay or even Sault Ste. Marie, there is a feeling of alienation from the smaller communities.

If the minister had decided to move him to Hearst or Chapleau, I would have complimented him on it because that is the way to go for the ministry, the direction the minister wants to go and the thrust he should be moving on. I leave that suggestion with the minister with the hope he will reconsider.

We welcome the regional doctor of mining to Kenora. We had hoped maybe the assistant deputy minister of mines would be moved there. I think that would be a good move. Rather than keeping that gentleman and that office and position in Toronto, he should be moved to northern Ontario where he rightly belongs. We do not need an assistant deputy minister of mines in Toronto. He should be on northern ground. He should be in the trenches. Kenora is the spot for him.

The minister should have a look at that possibility because I think it would stand well in the eyes of northerners.

3:40 p.m.

I would like the minister to bring us up to date on where his government stands with respect to the $100-tax credit for northern Ontario residents. The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) will remember hearing lots about that during the election campaign. One hundred dollars for every northern Ontario resident is a pittance, really. If he is going to do it, I would hope he would come up with a $500 tax credit -- something meaningful and worth while that would have an impact.

I must also note that the minister said it would cost about $26 million to bring in a $100 tax credit for each person living in the vast northern Ontario area. I fail to understand how an area with a population of fewer than one million, at $100 each will cost $26 million, if my mathematics is right.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: It was your party that said that during the election.

Mr. Bernier: It is the minister's quote from the paper.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: That came from your research.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Whom are you appointing today?

Mr. Bernier: I am not appointing anyone. I must say I was interested in the minister's answer when he said obviously he does look at the background and the capabilities. That makes me believe that those people were looked at from a political point of view.

Mr. Eakins: Yes indeed. I even looked at the chairman's background.

Mr. Chairman: Order. This is not really the place for questions and answers.

Mr. Bernier: Maybe the minister could tell us when that tax rebate will be implemented. He was elected, I suppose, on the promises he personally made and touted across northern Ontario, because they made such a good platform. He hoodwinked a lot of northerners into believing they would get a $100 tax credit, but nothing has been forthcoming.

In his response I am sure the minister wants to bring us up to date on his involvement in the housing aspects of northern Ontario. It came as a bit of a shock when I read the ads the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines ran with respect to getting input from northerners on housing needs. One trip across northern Ontario would provide all the information needed.

Nevertheless, why is he moving into an area where he will be usurping the responsibility of the Ministry of Housing? What is the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) doing? This gives me some concern. I think the minister has plenty on his plate to look after without looking after the problems of another ministry. I would like some explanation about why he moved into this field and how he will co-ordinate his input with that of the Minister of Housing.

I was puzzled by the minister's comments in late July when he was speaking on economic diversification in northern Ontario communities. He stated it was about time the north got its fair share of industry. I do not disagree with that. "Everything possible should be done to get the Toyota plant into northern Ontario." That is quoted from the Timmins Daily Press, July 27, 1985.

The next comment I heard about the Toyota plant was in mid-September when the minister said, "We will not have Toyota in Hearst." That is from the Kapuskasing Northern Times, September 18, 1985. Of course we all know Toyota announced in December that it would establish its plant in Cambridge, Ontario. I was hoping the minister could explain these comments for the benefit of members present. I am sure we would all like to know what initiative and what effort the Minister of Northern Development and Mines went through to attract Toyota to Hearst. I would like his comments on that.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Ask the Toyota people first.

Mr. Bernier: Maybe he should have gone to Wawa and Blind River.

Mr. Wildman: I thought it was supposed to go to Sault St. Marie.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: That is not what I said. First of all, I said the Sault.

Mr. Bernier: Was it Sault St. Marie? I would be interested. These off-the-cuff comments can get the minister into difficulty, so we will be waiting --

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Do not read that. It will give you a heart attack.

Mr. Bernier: The minister always contradicts what he said, but we read it in the newspapers and that is all we can go by. If he is saying the media in northern Ontario does not correctly report him, then he should stand up and say that the media in northern Ontario is a bunch of --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Whose newspaper is that?

Mr. Bernier: I do not know. Maybe it is the paper that is operating out of Kapuskasing.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Is that the paper owned by the former member?

Mr. Bernier: I wonder. I read the Kapuskasing Northern Times and I think the former member is very kind to the present member. He reports him front page on a fairly regular basis, his picture is in there on a regular basis. I think Mr. Piché is being very kind and runs a good factual newspaper. I hope the minister will not condemn our excellent northern paper from Kapuskasing.

I was interested to hear the minister make reference to a cabinet committee, of which I spoke a few moments ago, that would be established to approve northern Ontario regional development grants. We went through the whole issue of the Nordev grants earlier this year. We finally got them back on stream and now we hear a cabinet committee has been established with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines as chairman to make decisions with regard to these grants.

Perhaps the minister will tell us in his response how many meetings this cabinet committee has held, when they were held, how many applications were dealt with and the names of those making the applications. That would be of interest to us.

We also heard there would be a real increase in the amount of Northern Ontario Development Corp. loans, or moneys going to NODC for northern Ontario. I do not think we have seen any of that happen yet, but maybe the minister will enlighten us as to what is going to happen in that field.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Is it true you said we were going to win more seats in the north?

Mr. Bernier: They will keep the present one; I do not disagree with that. Their track record in the past 10 years has not been good. They have averaged one or two seats, so they will have to work a lot harder than they have been doing and they will have to come up with some of the new programs they have been talking about for the past 40 years. Nothing has happened. There is nothing in these estimates that would encourage me or any other northerner to vote Liberal; there is nothing there. Even the Minister of Tourism and Recreation has a decreased budget. This minister has a decreased budget. That all affects northern Ontario. I do not know how they are going to march that kind of information across northern Ontario and expect to get more seats.

I am sure the member for Algoma will agree with me. He might not say it as strongly, but I am sure he will agree with me that with the present policy of this government, we in the Tory Party and they in the New Democratic Party have no fear of any thrust from the government benches.

The tax increases alone will scare a lot of northerners off; something like $700 million in additional taxes imposed on them by the government last fall.

I have a copy of the North Bay Nugget. It is very interesting. There is a picture of my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds). It is headlined, "NDP Upset with Gasoline Tax Hike." I want to remind the people of northern Ontario through Hansard and through these printed documents that it was the New Democratic Party that supported the Liberals in their desire to increase gasoline taxes.

Mr. Wildman: No, they backed off.

Mr. Bernier: They backed off a pittance. They issued a press release saying they are violently opposed to the gasoline tax increase, but then who supported the government in the Legislature? They do not go around northern Ontario telling their constituents, "We supported the government on the tax increase for gasoline and fuel oil." They do not say anything about that; not a bit. However, they cheat a little in their press releases.

The New Democratic Party should say here what it says in northern Ontario and should say in northern Ontario what it says here. It is not two different places; it is the same place and will catch up with them.

I am coming close to a conclusion. I have touched on a number of areas and a number of questions. We have laid something like 40 to 50 questions before this committee that I hope will be answered before our time runs out.

I would like to conclude by repeating what I said at the start of my comments. I am disappointed and surprised that this new government has not offered northern Ontarians many of the new and bold Liberal initiatives we heard so much about for so many years, many of which I have touched on in the examination of these estimates. This has led me to reaffirm my opinion that this government is weak and afraid to show its own policies to the people of northern Ontario.

3:50 p.m.

Finally, the confusion about the ministry's mandate has led many northerners to believe that the Liberal government of Ontario has little interest in and little commitment to the unique needs of northern Ontario.

I look forward to hearing the minister's response and I hope there will be some very positive statements of assurance for all northern Ontarians who wish to share in the development of this ministry.

Mr. Wildman: It is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. At the outset I will express my congratulations to the minister in a public way -- I have done it privately -- on his appointment to this position and on the work he has done so far in trying to inform himself of the various concerns of the communities across northern Ontario and to bring those concerns to the cabinet table and to the Legislature. This minister certainly has a great deal of energy, which he has demonstrated in his travels across northern Ontario in the few months he has been the minister. He has indicated a sincere concern for and desire to understand the problems and difficulties that northerners and northern communities face and a desire to try to get as much input as possible from the people across northern Ontario. I congratulate him on that.

We are in a rather unusual position in that, while we are considering the estimates for this ministry, we are really considering estimates from a year past. Rather than concentrate on the programs of this ministry, I will spend most of my remarks dealing with some of the problems I see in northern Ontario and with suggestions that this party believes should be considered for trying to deal with the long-standing problems we have experienced in northern Ontario.

I will not reiterate some of the comments made by my colleague the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier), but there are a couple I would like to touch on briefly. I will concentrate on economic problems and on the difficulties in northern Ontario related to our dependence on resource extraction. I realize that in the debate on these estimates we will be able to deal with all of the items instead of going on an item-by-item basis. However, I will leave my specific questions on particular line votes until the time we are going to pass those votes. I do not expect I will be making extensive comments at that time; rather, I will be asking specific questions.

The member for Kenora did mention the question of the name of the ministry. He made reference to an editorial in the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal of November 29. I would like to point out a couple of the comments that were made in that editorial a little more extensively than the former speaker did.

The Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal says in an editorial entitled "What's in a Name?": "More than anything else, changing the name of Ontario's ministry for northern affairs appears to be a bid by the government to be seen to be doing something new for this part of the province as opposed to actually doing something new." I certainly hope that is not the case.

Further on in the editorial the writer says: "Ontario's Liberals supplanted the Tories in power at Queen's Park last June and added the words `and Mines' to the Northern Affairs ministry's name. Fifteen years earlier the name was the same, only in reverse order.

"Last month the minister, René Fontaine, announced he wanted to change the name again, this time to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines."

Before I go on with some other comments made in this editorial, we in our party did get a little confused. We also got a little confused as to the method used by the government to change the name. When the minister indicated the name would be changed, we anticipated -- for all of the reasons I will deal with in a moment -- that would entail an amendment to the Ministry of Northern Affairs Act, since the second section of that act names the ministry. That would have been a minor legislative change in the House, but we anticipated that would be the approach used.

Instead, the government used an order in council appointing the minister as Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines. The order in council gave that minister the responsibility for carrying out the duties of the Minister of Northern Affairs and the responsibility for dealing with the Ministry of Northern Affairs Act, as well as the Mining Act and a couple of others.

Frankly, we find this to be an odd approach to this minor administrative change in name. I realize the minister believes, and has stated, that it is more than a minor change. He believes it is an indication of a different approach of the ministry. However, I never got an explanation from the government as to why it used this rather strange administrative tactic to change a name when it simply could have made a minor amendment to the Ministry of Northern Affairs Act.

Mr. Bernier: It would have been debated here.

Mr. Wildman: Exactly.

At any rate, the editorial goes on to say: "The reason, he said" -- referring to the minister -- "was to `put the accent on development -- not just economic development but social development as well, because the two must go hand in hand.'" We applaud that, but then the editorial writer says: "At this point it may be useful to refer to Bill 21, An Act to Establish the Ministry of Northern Affairs. Among the ministry's functions would be `making recommendations regarding priorities for research of social and economic conditions of all areas of northern Ontario.'"

Frankly, the editorial writer is saying the former Ministry of Northern Affairs had the responsibility for making recommendations with regard to social and economic development in northern Ontario. One is reminded of the phrase, "What is in a name?" or "A rose by any other name." My view, and I know the minister does not necessarily agree with it, is that it does not matter what the name is. What is important is what the ministry does.

Honestly, I do not think the ministry or the government in the past has been able to adequately respond to the needs of the north with regard to the social and economic conditions and the need for development. I do not believe that changing the name in itself is going to bring about that change.

I understand the minister is sincere when he says this is symbolic of a change in approach, and we anticipate that we will be seeing evidence of that in the weeks and months to come.

The editorial writer ends by saying: "The accent, then, has been on northern development, both social and economic, from the start. There is nothing of substance in Fontaine's word game."

I hope there is something of substance in it and I do not characterize it as a word game, as this editorial writer does. I also question whether the accent has been on northern development, both social and economic, from the start of this ministry. The ministry has done a lot to try to deal with northern problems. However, over the weekend I looked back over the estimates debates of this ministry and at the debate we had in this House when the Ministry of Northern Affairs Act was introduced and, frankly, a lot of the comments I will be making this afternoon are comments that were made in those same debates.

The problems we identified in those debates remain. They have not yet been adequately dealt with and we look forward to the initiatives this government may bring forward that will deal with those problems.

4 p.m.

In his leadoff speech, the minister recognized the problems. He was quite frank in his description of the problems in northern Ontario.

If I look at pages 2 and 3 of the minister's presentation, he itemizes the problems he sees and that most of us in northern Ontario understand exist in that part of the province. He points out that we are dependent on the mining and forestry industries and that these industries are very important to the economy not only of the north but also of the whole province. He goes on to point out that the north's dependence on these resources means the economy is a fragile one. He points to the difficulties we are experiencing with regard to competition for markets, particularly with regard to metals but also in forest products.

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: These are very important estimates. They relate to a very large area of Ontario. I would point out that we do not have a quorum.

Mr. Chairman ordered the bells rung.

4:05 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: While some might think I would be disturbed by my colleague the member for Kenora calling a quorum while I was speaking, I agree completely with his point of view that we need to have more members of this Legislature take an interest in northern Ontario and listen to the concerns expressed by members from the north during this debate. I am gratified to see that the quorum call brought two more members from the north here, one from the Conservative Party and one from the New Democratic Party, so I guess we are making some progress.

I want to assure the committee that my colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) has told me that he and a number of my other colleagues were in the lobby. While they were outside, not only were they listening to my remarks but also they were discussing what we should do with Minaki Lodge. So they do have an interest in the north.

As I was saying before the quorum call, the minister, in his leadoff remarks, did recognize the problems that we have in northern Ontario and that have been endemic in our economy. He did state that as a result of these problems, the competition that we are experiencing in the metals market and the forest products market -- more than 30 per cent of the northern work force is in resource industries and more than 70 per cent of the region's manufacturing jobs depend on them -- in recent years the cyclical nature of these industries has been worsened by world market trends, falling prices and reduced demand. That is true, but there are a couple of comments in that statement which raise some concerns in my mind.

The minister recognizes the cyclical nature of the resource industries in northern Ontario and no one can deny that. He understands that we are experiencing falling prices and reduced demand and the problems that result from those. But as I look through the minister's comments, I am concerned that beyond wanting to consult -- as I said, the minister has done a great deal of consultation throughout northern Ontario asking for input from the people of the north -- there are not very many solutions proposed to the problems of the cyclical nature of these industries, world market trends and how we respond to the falling prices and the reduced demand.

That the minister wants to consult with northerners is welcomed and he has done so widely, but in my view the responsibility of a government must be to present proposals and initiatives about which the minister could then consult with northerners. I am a little concerned that in consulting without some kind of focus we may get a lot of ideas, many of them useful, but some of them might be in conflict so that we will not gain as much as we could if we had a more focused discussion across northern Ontario.

4:10 p.m.

As the minister indicated, it does not matter whether the commodity is nickel, lumber, pulp and paper, iron ore, or the gold from the new boom in Hemlo, the correlation between resource development and the economic weakness is a fact of life. Resource development is synonymous with dependency and dependency means vulnerability for communities in the north and for northerners.

The minister's party stated in its northern policy paper for the 1985 election campaign that the northern economy suffers from a boom-and-bust cycle related to resource extraction. The minister reiterated that in his leadoff remarks. We all know that in northern Ontario we have between 85 per cent and 90 per cent of the province's land mass but only about 10 per cent of the population. The north supplies more than $2.03 billion worth of minerals and raw materials for the $5.7-billion forest products industry, but the economy of northern Ontario is starving for an injection of secondary industry to stabilize this boom-and-bust cycle we have had to endure ever since the north was first opened up.

Resource industries have been subject to wild fluctuations in markets as well as the depletion of the resource; 30 mines have closed in Ontario since 1977. From 1980 to 1984, employment in the mining sector decreased from 50,000 to 35,000. Production of major metals has had a steady and significant decline in Ontario in the last decade. Since 1971, iron, nickel, copper, zinc and gold, despite the Hemlo find, have fallen in production. The value of metal production in Ontario is down from $3.8 billion in 1980 to $3.4 billion in 1984.

From 1983 to 1984, the number of jobs in forestry has also dropped from about 15,000 to about 12,000. Even more alarming, as the minister should be very aware, we face shortages of wood in many communities of the north, perhaps even in Hearst, Chapleau, Thunder Bay, Nipigon and Atikokan.

These facts are not new and I am sure they are not new to the minister. In the north, our economy is so susceptible to the boom and bust of resource extraction that governments just accept and/or ignore it. I do not mean past or present governments do not care, but they are so used to the boom-and-bust cycle they just say that is the way it is. As the minister said in his comments, it is the cyclical nature of these industries.

This summer, in a brief to the select committee on economic affairs, after admitting we have lost about half the nickel jobs and over half the iron ore jobs in Ontario, the then Ministry of Northern Affairs and Mines went on to assert glibly that these losses will be offset to some extent by the new mining jobs being created in the Hemlo area gold mines. I suggest this does not provide much hope to the hardrock miners of Sudbury or Wawa who have lost their jobs because of Inco or Algoma ore division cutbacks.

What does a miner in those communities do when his life's savings are locked up in a house that cannot be sold because of the depressed realty market, or who is too old, in mining terms, to move to Hemlo and get in on the next boom? Unless we get changes in our economy and in the government's approach to the economy of northern Ontario, that boom in Hemlo will some day be a bust. Whether we like to admit it or not, as soon as one opens a mine in northern Ontario or anywhere else, it is on the way to its closure. Obviously, mineral resources are finite and subject to changes in the market and to the depletion of the overall resource.

Even if a miner moves to Hemlo, if he is a young man, unless we see changes, he may face closures in those communities some time down the road, whether it be 25 years or more. It is time this government and northerners in general got involved in planning for that future. We have made some moves and the minister has made some moves in this regard, which I will refer to later.

The minister confirms that the Liberal government has the same attitude, I am afraid, in this regard as its predecessor government, the Conservatives. On page 12 of his leadoff statement he says, "Mining has always been a cyclical industry, but its ups and downs have been particularly pronounced over the past few years." Listen to this: "Neither the industry itself nor the government can do much to flatten out these hills and valleys."

I hope the minister was simply referring to the hills and valleys in the production of a particular mine rather than the overall cyclical nature of the industry and how it affects northern Ontario in general. If the second is what he was referring to then, in my opinion, it is an admission of failure right at the beginning. Frankly, if that is what the minister meant, and I hope it was not, it is almost as though he is throwing up his hands at the beginning and saying, "This is a serious situation, a problem, but we all know very little, if anything, can be done about it."

I hope that is not what he meant. If he did, at least we can thank him for being honest. I am not sure that past governments have been as frank.

As long as this attitude persists, though, the north will continue to be denied its fair share of the prosperity that is based upon the exploitation of its resources and its wealth. As indicated in the Liberal policy paper, development decisions will be made in the interests of the Golden Horseshoe rather than of northern Ontario. The north will continue to be a resource hinterland. Its role will remain that of a supplier of resources for the expansion of manufacturing in the south. It will remain, to a great extent, dependent on the extraction and export of primary mineral and forest resource products.

Even though the north contains 75 per cent of Ontario's productive forests, and more than 90 per cent of the annual ore tonnage that is extracted comes from north of the French River, much of the wealth and job creation potential of the north's resources is lost to southern Ontario and to other metropolitan centres.

For example, while the north produces virtually all of the province's timber and pulp, fully 60 per cent of the jobs involved in processing these raw materials are located in southern Ontario. Because of this situation, the regional disparities between north and south have been perpetuated, and they continue. Despite all of the efforts of past governments throwing money at the situation, and tinkering, we still remain far poorer overall in northern Ontario, despite our great wealth, than the southern part of the province.

The population weighted average per capita income for northern Ontario is $10,219. That is 83.9 per cent of the per capita income average in the province.

In the Manitoulin district -- I know my friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) will be fully aware of this -- we have the lowest per capita income in the province. It is $6,644 weighted average per capita, which is only 54.5 per cent of the provincial per capita income.

It is not as if governments in the past have completely ignored the situation. They have maintained, at least, a façade of concern. They have set up studies, hired consultants, appointed commissioners, and studied, studied, studied the north to death.

4:20 p.m.

I have said in the past that the main growth industry in northern Ontario over the last few years has been consultancy. Every time there was a problem, instead of doing something about it they hired another consultant, but there has been very little action to change this situation. We have had legislative committees study the north. We have had task forces look at various aspects of the north. We have appointed boards and royal commissions.

Sometimes these reports have just gathered dust on the shelf afterwards. Other times the government has tried to act on some of the recommendations of the reports, mainly by throwing money at the problems. The overall result was described very well by the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce in 1977 when it described the previous government's approach to northern Ontario as "a profile in failure."

I am sure the minister would enjoy reading that report by the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce. It is a very reputable group. It is not some left-wing faction and certainly not a radical group. That 1977 report makes interesting reading.

The reaction of the then Treasurer of the province, Darcy McKeough, the Duke of Kent, when he received the chamber's report, was also very interesting. I think he said something to the effect that northern Ontario generally, but Sudbury in particular, would not see secondary manufacturing in his lifetime. Of course, we all know where Darcy is now. I think he is looking for work. Perhaps they might consider hiring him as an industrial commissioner in Sudbury.

It is not as though the former government did not recognize the problems. Specifically, a Conservative leadership candidate in the second to last leadership campaign recognized the problems. He said: "What is missing is effective leadership and appropriate growth strategies that can harness this potential. For decades, bureaucrats from Toronto have been coming forward with one program after another that was billed as a solution to your problems. You still have these problems." He meant northern problems.

That was a tremendous admission by that member of the Conservative Party, that after his party had been in power for 42 years, after his party had been the government responsible for responding to the needs of the north, those needs had not been met and the problems were still in existence and were being compounded. As he pointed out, what was missing was effective leadership and appropriate growth strategies that could harness the potential of the north.

The minister has been a little alarmed by some of the comments I have sometimes made in the House with regard to the latest report of significance about northern Ontario, the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment. I am worried that we may be seeing a repetition of the reaction the previous government had to reports prepared for it, whether by consultants, commissioners, boards or legislative committees; that we might see government lipservice in response to the recommendations of the report of that royal commission, but nothing more.

So far we have not had a definitive government response, even though the report was finished, I believe in May or June, and published in August. It is six months later and the government has moved in some areas, but we still have had no official response from the government as to its position on the many recommendations of commissioner Fahlgren.

Perhaps the minister will come forward with a progress report to the House. Perhaps during these estimates he can tell us what has been done in response to the recommendations in the commissioner's report -- that these are ones the government thinks it should be moving on; these are ones it thinks should be changed and not necessarily implemented the way they were proposed; and these are ones it does not think should be followed up.

We need to have some kind of official response. We are looking at the most expensive and lengthy royal commission that has ever taken place in Ontario's history. If that is not to be a complete waste of time and money, then we need to have some sort of response from this government.

I realize this commission report was sort of dumped on the minister. It was not his commission, it was not something he had set up and it certainly went on much longer than any of us anticipated, but there are some interesting and important recommendations in that report. It is important for us as a Legislature to know the government's position. Perhaps it would be useful if we could debate in this House some of the recommendations or at least the government's response to the recommendations of the royal commission.

In an economy that depends on resource extraction, communities are dependent upon the decisions of multinational corporations. It is hard to find a community in northern Ontario that is not a single-industry town. One-industry towns are very vulnerable to the decisions made by corporation managers in the privacy of their boardrooms. As I have said, the Liberal government and the minister seem to recognize the problems of the north. With regard to one-industry towns, the minister has set up a committee of which I am a member, along with my colleagues the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin) and the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce).

My colleague the member for Kenora raised the question in the last session we had on these estimates, wondering whether this committee has muzzled its members in the Legislature. I can assure him it certainly has not muzzled me and I do not think it has muzzled anyone on the committee. We are reporting to the minister specifically with regard to suggestions we might have, with approaches for an Ontario model of the development of one-industry towns, but there is nothing in the terms of reference of the committee, nor in the discussions we have had about how it will operate, that says members cannot express their views publicly during the time of the committee's work. I certainly intend to do that and am doing so this afternoon.

Mr. Bernier: Does the member agree with having a select committee?

Mr. Wildman: To be frank, having been a member of this Legislature for 10 years, I would have preferred a select committee of the House. The minister decided to take this route, and it certainly is an innovative approach he has taken. I have not been able to find a precedent for it.

The closest I have been able to find is the task force that was headed by the federal member for Cochrane-Superior, Keith Penner, with regard to Indian self-government. It was a parliamentary committee with members of Parliament and full voting members on the committee who were not members of Parliament but who did very important and significant work with regard to the approach to self-government for our native people under the Constitution.

There are some significant differences. That was a committee of Parliament which had added members. The majority were members of Parliament, as was the chairman. This is an unprecedented approach. It is one with which I am prepared to co-operate and work hard. I hope we will be able to come up with some ideas that will be useful to the minister and the government as well as the Legislature and the people of the north.

4:30 p.m.

While I am happy we are going to be looking at the problems of one-industry towns, I am concerned that the government does not appear any more willing than the previous government to challenge the lead role of the multinationals in northern Ontario -- multinationals that control our resource industries -- to ensure the diversification of such towns. I have had no indication as yet that we are going to have a government that is prepared to challenge the role of the private sector, which has led to the boom-and-bust, one-industry ghost towns we have experienced in the north.

Of the single-industry towns in Ontario, 60 per cent are in the northern part. They exist, as the minister knows, only as long as the private companies find it profitable to export the resources of the area. As soon as that is no longer profitable, the company will shut down. The mine or the mill will close and the municipality and the residents are left holding the bag. That has been the history of northern Ontario right from the time the railroads went through.

If the government leaves the lead role to the private sector and fails to take the lead in affecting investment decisions, then undiversified communities and their residents will not fare very well. The corporations who take the profits out of the area certainly get along very well in that kind of an environment.

We have only to consider the plight of Ear Falls and Red Lake to understand this situation. As members of the Legislature probably are aware, there was a very important and significant event in Ear Falls this weekend. There was a party held there, basically to say goodbye. I know the mayor, Mr. Leschuk, is determined that the community will survive and develop. There is a feeling among many people that they want to see the community continue to serve as a home and a place where people can live and work. In essence, that party on the weekend was a farewell party.

I understand the international president of the United Steelworkers of America, Lynn Williams, was present. I am looking at this morning's edition of the Thunder Bay Times-News and there is a quote from Lynn Williams which I think is significant. He began by saying, "Mine closures," such as Stelco has done with the Griffith Mine, "are unconscionable. We have a society where people want to work, create things, want to do things and contribute to the progress of society. They are denied the opportunity to do so."

They are denied the opportunity to do so because the future of that community and the surrounding communities is dependent on investment decisions which consider the bottom line and do not consider the situation and what it is going to mean to the community.

My colleague the MP for Kenora-Rainy River, John Parry, was also present and was quoted in the newspaper as saying; "The social" -- that is the party -- "and the mine's demise were indeed a sad comment on the lack of economic planning in Canada, particularly in northern Ontario where these types of closures continue."

He could not be more right in saying what he said next. "The days of the packsack miner and families must come to an end. People who invest their work in a mine must not be forced later to uproot their families and roam around our country in search of work."

The decision by Stelco means that, with the closure of the Griffith Mine effective April 1, there is a death sentence by economic strangulation of the communities in the area. There will be 280 jobs eliminated. This could mean the decline of the Ear Falls population from 2,100 to about 1,400. The projected adverse impact on the local municipal tax base, on the ability to maintain schools, on real estate values, on small businesses and on community vitality is obvious and disastrous.

Ear Falls obviously is not an isolated instance. We have seen the experience of Atikokan. Some people might point to Atikokan and to the response of the former government to the closure in that area; or even to the closure of the Griffith Mine, the political pressure that was put on Stelco to postpone that closure for a year and the efforts that were made to bring about a better severance package. They might say the former government did respond to the problems of one-industry towns of northern Ontario. In a way it did, but its response was a reactive one; it was not proactive. As soon as those mines opened, everybody knew that some day they would close.

Mr. Bernier: What would the member do about Wawa?

Mr. Wildman: I am going to speak about Wawa in a moment. It is exactly the same problem. There was not a proactive approach. We have never gone into those communities and asked: "How do we plan for the future? How do we ensure that when the mine closes down, there will be a viable economic base in the community, so it can continue, so the municipality will be able to maintain its schools, real estate values will not drop out of sight, small businesses will continue to operate and the community will remain vital?" I hope the committee that has been set up can come to some conclusions about a proactive approach, and I am certainly willing to work towards that.

However, in the past, because no alternative industries have been developed during the years of prosperity, mine closings inevitably imposed severe hardships on the miners, their families and the whole community. This type of economic development cannot possibly provide a secure foundation on which stable communities can be built.

In his leadoff the minister did comment on the need for diversification in mining communities. He stated it was his intention to encourage increased processing of ores in Canada, which is a laudable intention. Then he went on to say:

"We will not be doing this in a heavy-handed fashion. Rather, we will examine each requested exemption having regard for the impact on jobs in Ontario and on the economy as a whole. The government intends to deal with each situation in a fair and reasonable manner."

I suggest to the minister that he start dealing with the situation of Falconbridge and that he deal in a fair and reasonable manner with the community of Sudbury. It is unconscionable, in my view, that Falconbridge has been able to operate in northern Ontario for all these years under an exemption that allows it to continue to export that ore for processing overseas. As we all know, by exporting that ore we are exporting jobs. There are more jobs in processing and refining than there are in primary resource extraction.

4:40 p.m.

The argument of the former government was always that if it did not allow Falconbridge an exemption to export the ores for processing elsewhere, it would not continue to operate in Sudbury. It would not be economic for the company and we would lose all those underground jobs in Sudbury. If the minister is going to deal with these problems, I suggest he deal with Falconbridge. If he does not want to be heavy-handed about it, then he should do it some other way. Approach it with kid gloves, if that is necessary, but the result must be that these ores will be processed in Ontario to produce jobs in Ontario so the wealth we extract from underground in the Sudbury basin benefits Ontario directly rather than continuing to benefit other countries.

As long as we continue to allow companies to take wealth out of the community without putting wealth back, we will experience the kind of instability of family and community life in northern Ontario that has been dramatically and unfortunately reflected in the region's migration figures. The ups and downs of the economy, frequent layoffs and the relative absence of alternative job opportunities have forced people to look elsewhere for ongoing employment.

In 1981, the total population of northern Ontario was 819,576, which was an increase of only 0.3 per cent over the previous census in 1976. Over the same period, Ontario's total population increased by 4.4 per cent. The percentage of northern population to the overall provincial population declined from 9.9 per cent in 1976 to 9.4 per cent in 1984.

Thousands of idle workers in the north and people leaving to find work elsewhere are living testimony to the failure of the former government to stimulate the economy of the north. Since 1980, the unemployment situation in northern Ontario has worsened. As the minister stated in his leadoff remarks on page 3, we are experiencing a very serious recession in northern Ontario.

In 1980, the average number of unemployed in northeastern Ontario was 18,000, or eight per cent of the work force. In 1984, the number of unemployed had doubled in total to 36,000, or 14.9 per cent of the total work force. In northwestern Ontario, unemployment increased from 7.2 per cent to 9.4 per cent.

It is important for members to realize that these figures from Statistics Canada are vastly underestimated because, for some reason which has yet to be explained to me, they exclude the total native population.

I sometimes think we live in a racist society. Why is it that the federal government, in reporting employment figures in northern Ontario, talks only about white employment? It sounds as if we are accepting the fact that the vast majority of the native population is out of work and will remain out of work. If we were to include the native population, those figures would skyrocket.

Also, those figures are somewhat misleading because obviously some communities experience much higher rates of unemployment. The area that I come from reached rates of unemployment in the neighbourhood of 25 to 30 per cent during the recession. We are coming out of the recession and things are improving, but one of the main reasons for the drop in employment, besides the fact that some of the workers in the Saint Ste. Marie and Algoma areas have been called back to work by Algoma Steel Corp., is that large numbers of people have left the area and gone elsewhere looking for work, mostly to southern Ontario.

So while the people who like to take a Pollyanna approach to northern Ontario can point to the figures and say, "It is still bad; we have high unemployment, but it is better than it was," they will not be able to argue that it is because we have created a lot of new employment. It is largely because the people have given up and left.

The northern economy provides fewer opportunities for young people and women than we have in southern Ontario. That is obvious. If we have an economy that is based on resource development, we are going to face a situation where few women are going to work underground in a mine, for instance, or in the bush. Some do. We did change the Mining Act a few years ago to allow women to work underground. They are, however, nontraditional jobs and very few women are able to take them.

With the recession, there is very little opportunity for young people, particularly as we come out of the recession and companies recover through changes in processes and greater automation. It means fewer jobs in the future and fewer opportunities for young people.

In 1984, the participation rate for the work force was only 60.6 per cent in northeastern Ontario. That was the lowest of any part of Ontario. Northwestern Ontario was slightly better at 65.1 per cent. That is still below the 1979 average and we are supposedly coming out of the recession.

In 1983, northeastern Ontario had the highest youth unemployment rate in the province. One youth in four was unable to find work; 25 per cent unemployment. In the northwest, it was not much better. One youth in five or 20 per cent could not find work. In October 1984, almost one in three males between the ages of 15 and 24, was unemployed.

When speaking in the House in the past, I have been accused of being a doomsayer. My friend the member for Kenora used to accuse me of doom and gloom. I have always been careful, though, in outlining the problems we experience in the north, to try to put forward suggestions for change and proposals that might resolve some of these problems. Unfortunately, despite my efforts and those of my colleagues and of many people in the north, we seem to have missed our opportunity to build a balanced economy in northern Ontario.

Let us take nickel as an example. Canada and Ontario used to have a virtual world monopoly on nickel production. In 1940, Canada represented 86 per cent of world nickel production. By the mid 1980s, Canada's share had dropped to 20 per cent.

It is interesting that during this recession, that is from the period of the Depression in the 1930s up to 1981, Inco never sustained a year of loss. During the current recession, it has experienced losses, but during that period between the Depression, before the war, and the 1980s, there was never one year of financial loss for Inco.

Inco has taken literally billions of dollars worth of surplus out of Sudbury and out of this country. That economic surplus was used to acquire companies in unrelated areas such as a battery manufacturing plant. It was used to reduce the company's dependence on Sudbury workers through nickel investments in Guatemala and Indonesia, unwise as they were.

Now nickel prices are at a 30-year low. Inco's investments have been financial disasters, including the battery plant and those in Guatemala and Indonesia. Third World producers are in open competition with the company. As a result, Inco has reduced its Sudbury work force from 18,000 in 1971 to 7,100 in 1985.

The point is this: Nickel was a strategic and valuable resource. It was clear that our stranglehold on world production would not last forever. Instead of using the economic surplus that the limited resource produced to help build a manufacturing base, we allowed Inco to use the surplus as private property.

4:50 p.m.

It is not just nickel. Look at forestry. We have allowed companies to devour our first-growth forest and now we have a situation in which a renewable resource has become a scarce commodity. The companies that have done the plundering have not even used the economic surplus to reinvest in their own industries or in the regeneration of their own raw materials, so much so that the federal and provincial governments have had to come to the rescue of the industry in the last few years and provide grants so that it would modernize. The taxpayers paid for the modernization while the companies took the profit.

The Ontario Forest Industries Association appeared before the select committee on economic affairs and actually admitted that many of the industry's paper machines are 50 to 70 years old and cannot compete with Scandinavian production, where the average age of machinery is about five years.

Why is the pulp and paper industry allowed to continue to produce on machinery that was modern around the time of the First World War? When the industry argues that it needs more modern machinery, why are the taxpayers, federal or provincial, expected to foot the bill? Despite decades of profitability, why has it taken hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money to help the industry upgrade its facilities?

I know I am not saying anything the minister is not aware of. In his remarks, the minister stated that northerners are more and more unwilling to accept as normal the economic uncertainties produced by the boom-and-bust cycles common to resource economies. They rightly demand greater economic stability and diversification, such as that enjoyed in the southern part of the province. The minister said he had inherited this situation, and it is obvious he has; he was not here before. However, he said he is not pessimistic and that there are steps that can be taken and approaches that can be used to strengthen the northern economy.

What is missing in the statement is a delineation of what this minister thinks should be done. I did not really find it in his statement, so I went to a document I know the minister is familiar with, namely, The Ontario Liberal Party and the North, A Fair Share in Ontario's Prosperity. That was the Liberal Party's platform in the last election campaign. In that document, the Liberals suggested a number of things should be done.

For instance, they said the immediate responsibility of the government would be to release an independent report on the state of Ontario's forest industry. I know the minister will point to the efforts made by his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) in hiring Dr. Baskerville to do an assessment as a fulfilment of that commitment.

He knows very well what our position is with regard to that. We want to have an independent assessment of our forest resource, but the time frame and the terms of reference of that inquiry by Dr. Baskerville, in our view, will make it possible for him simply to investigate the figures in the ministry's files and we will not get the kind of true picture we need.

The document on the Liberal Party's commitments to the north also said the government would provide for regeneration of all cutover lands and the backlog of unsatisfactorily restocked crown land. This would ensure adequate supplies to meet current demands and allow for future expansion. They would greatly increase the current regeneration program to meet our wood supply target. The government would establish a consistent and continuous forest species inventory to record species, maturity and climatic conditions.

Further, they would place a priority on increased research and development in support of forest renewal and intensive forest management and would increase funding for forestry schools, such as Lakehead University, which are facing severe budget cuts at a time when greater demand is for silviculturists. It would control the cutting practices for lumber companies to eliminate wasteful cutting practices. It would encourage greater utilization of allowable cuts. He went on to say there was scope for increased use of hardwoods in pulping manufacturing. He said the Liberal government would ensure that silviculture requirements dictate logging methods.

The responses made by the Minister of Natural Resources, a colleague of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, over the past few days with regard to the spraying program and the requests for input from people in the north, does not give me a great deal of confidence that we are going to see any real change in the approach to managing the forest resource in northern Ontario. If we cannot even move to look after the primary resource industry in the proper way, that does not give me confidence we are actually going to change our overall dependence on that one industry.

This is quite an interesting document. I have read it carefully over the past few months. I remind myself about it every now and then. When I have nothing to do, I take it out, try to memorize it and determine what is being done by this government to fulfil its commitment.

One of the things it says with regard to what I have been discussing is, "We would ensure that a larger share of the profits and products of the north's primary industries would be reinvested in secondary industries in the north, generating new jobs."

That is very supportable. It is something we in the New Democratic Party have been talking about in this House for years, but nowhere in this document or in the minister's leadoff comments do we find how they are going to "ensure that a larger share of the profits and products of the north's primary industries will be reinvested in secondary industries in the north, generating new jobs."

All we have from the minister is a statement that he is not going to use a heavy hand. It is about time somebody started using a heavy hand in northern Ontario so that we have the kind of development based on our wealth that we deserve in our part of the province. If a heavy hand is necessary, so be it.

In this document the Liberals also said they had made a firm commitment to develop northern resources for northerners. They go on to say there will be a new ministry of northern development and native affairs that would be directed to northern development.

I will not go on at great length about the question of native affairs and why it is not part of this ministry, as the commitment was, and why we have mines rather than a separate ministry. Another commitment was that there would be a ministry of mines and they have not fulfilled it.

Mr. Bernier: Do you think it should be separate?

Mr. Wildman: I certainly do, but I will not go into that. It has been dealt with by my colleague.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I asked the mining companies and the prospectors and they said they are glad they are going.

Mr. Wildman: I am not too concerned where the administrative setup is. If the Ministry of the Attorney General can come up with an agreement for native self-government and for development of native communities, that is fine. What is important is that we do something about their lack of control over their own resources and their own lives, and that we make it possible for native communities to develop so they can provide jobs.

When I say, "How is he going to do these things?" I suppose the minister will point to his $100-million fund over five years for development in the north, part of which is the Nordev program for this year; $20 million per year. That is a start and I am not going to look a gift horse in the mouth, but that fund does not deal with what I have been talking about, the need to actually change our approach in the north.

5 p.m.

In his statement, the minister says it is a big challenge to find ways of retaining more wealth in the north. That is true. He says that to do this we must strengthen and encourage the existing resource industries, the backbone of the north, and at the same time build a more diversified economy around those industries. Again, that is very supportable, but again it begs the question of how.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: We carried that bill in one day.

Mr. Wildman: I recognize that. The minister has inherited what has been an ongoing problem, as I said, ever since the beginning of development in northern Ontario. What I am looking for, though, is some kind of blueprint for where we are going.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: A redprint, not a blueprint.

Mr. Wildman: Okay, a redprint, whatever, as long as it is a print.

The minister does point to his cabinet committee on northern development, which administers the $100-million northern development fund. I hope this government committee does not go the way of the last government committee on northern development. It was a committee on one-industry towns, which, as far as I can figure out, never met. If it did, nobody on the committee knew it was going to meet or when it met or what it did.

I hope this minister has the clout to actually persuade his cabinet colleagues, such as the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), who I am sure is interested in the problems of northern Ontario but knows almost nothing about them, even though he is originally from Sudbury, I believe, or at least his father is. I am not sure.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I was born in Sudbury, too. It is a great place to grow up.

Mr. Wildman: As I said, the Minister of the Environment is an example of the problem we have in northern Ontario of our young people leaving for opportunities elsewhere. I suppose it was his father who left and took him with him.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I could not get elected in Sudbury.

Mr. Wildman: That is true. He could not get elected in Sudbury, but I am sure that after his attempts to clean up the environment he will always be welcome in Sudbury.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Except by the Sudbury Star.

Mr. Wildman: If the Sudbury Star is criticizing the minister, he must be doing something right.

The minister points not only to the cabinet committee but also to the committees that will advise him on development in the various areas. Again he is attempting to get input; he is interested in having northerners involved in the decisions and advising on development plans. However, we do not as yet see proposals for those committees to comment on.

There are a lot of places we could look. The minister could simply refer to some of his Liberal colleagues. I am not asking him to accept the program of the New Democrats. For instance, we have Eric Kierans, a well-known Liberal -- perhaps he has not been an insider with the federal Liberal Party in the last few years but he is a well-known Liberal -- and he makes this comment:

"Resource-rich nations that continually yield up the value of their wealth in return for labour employed in this exploitation will never be more than resource nations. They lose the opportunity to form their own capital, capital which will enable them to break out of that very reliance on their resource base and reduce their dependence."

The minister seems prepared to move in that direction, but we are not sure how. As a northerner, I am convinced that the link between resource development and regional disparity will not be broken as long as free reign is given to free enterprise. As a democratic socialist I am convinced that economic planning and government intervention are necessary to break the cycle of resource exploitation and economic dependency that we have experienced in northern Ontario.

I am now going to move to some suggestions. I have been critical enough. The government must, in our view, become directly involved to alter the fundamental structural weaknesses of the northern economy. Even the Conservatives recognized that in order to diversify, extensive and costly interventions in the market would be required. The Conservatives recognized this, but they shied away from it. Under the Conservative regime, economic development was left to the initiative of the private sector. Investment decisions remained private rather than public, undemocratic rather than democratic.

The big question for us now in these estimates is, will the Liberals leave the development of the north to large private corporations, the very institutions that have perpetuated the structural weaknesses in the northern economy, or are they about to become directly involved themselves?

In the final analysis, northern underdevelopment has been both economic and political in its causes. The unplanned exploitation of resources by private corporations is assisted by governments whose ideology prevents them from playing active, constructive and direct roles in the management of the region's economy.

New Democrats believe the future of northern Ontario can and will be built on the mining and forest resource industries, but that future is in jeopardy unless these resources are developed to spur diversification to provide economic security for northern communities. As Commissioner Fahlgren said a couple of years ago, "We must all face the fact that some of our northern resources are under extreme pressure and that if economic development is not planned and properly managed, then there will not only be damage to the land but also to the people who live there."

As he advocated, economic development decisions cannot be left only to the private sector; rather, all northerners must be involved in economic decision-making.

The overall goal of this ministry must be to diversify the northern economy by building a much strengthened secondary manufacturing sector, solving the problems of one-industry towns in the process. We must flatten the peaks and valleys of the boom-bust cycle. We cannot accept it and say, "It is too bad, but that is the way it is." We must try to change it.

New Democrats are confident in the north and in its people, and I hope and wish the Liberals share that confidence.

As I have said before in this House, in acting to achieve economic diversification, the government should be guided by the following principles:

1. The benefits of northern development must accrue primarily to inhabitants of the region.

2. Priority must be given to making northern Ontario less dependent on imports.

3. Special assistance should be extended to locally owned businesses.

4. Meaningful local input into planning decisions is required.

5. Development, primarily north of the 50th parallel, must emphasize benefits to our native people.

6. The government must assume a direct, positive and aggressive role in northern development via comprehensive planning, public ownership, crown corporations and joint ventures with the private sector.

In closing, I will deal with two aspects: stability in the resource sector and diversification.

The government must bring about stability in the resource sector by ensuring the planned development of renewable and nonrenewable resources. To do this, we must negotiate planning agreements with the private companies that are operating in these resource sectors which would require reinvestment in job creation. In other words, they would have to return to the north some of the wealth they are extracting and would have to be committed to do that to operate there.

The government should form crown corporations which could provide windows on the industries and operate in such a way as to help control the pace of development and integrate investment and manpower policies across northern Ontario. Specifically, a publicly owned mining development corporation could play a lead role in exploring and developing mineral resources.

As the minister and his Liberal colleagues have admitted, we are now faced with a tremendous backlog of unregenerated cutover areas of forest land. The government should establish a crown corporation to redress the current legacy of Conservative neglect and ensure a wood supply sufficient to guarantee the future of northern Ontario's forest industry and the towns dependent on it. I am suggesting we become directly involved and set up the corporations that could operate by themselves in these areas and enter into joint ventures with the private sector.

5:10 p.m.

With regard to diversification, the government must make its top priority the creation of secondary manufacturing capability in northern Ontario. The planning and development agreements with the private sector that I referred to could ensure Canadian content requirements for resource extraction operations, machinery and parts.

We have a great potential for import replacement in mining machinery. This provides us with a very high job creation opportunity. Other import replacement opportunities exist in household furniture manufacturing and the utilization of wood waste for energy such as methanol fuel. That was one of the things mentioned in the Liberal promises for northern Ontario and I hope the minister will be able to give us some idea of his progress with regard to the use of wood waste for energy purposes.

The ministry should work with local areas to develop inventories of local potential and local needs. I hope the minister's regional development councils will operate in this way. I think he is taking the right approach if that is what he is hoping they will provide him with, as well as being able to comment on government proposals to meet those needs and to develop the potential.

We have an urgent need in northern Ontario for an agency to provide advice and assistance and to develop appropriate technologies for local development. For input and suggestions and proposals for changes, we cannot be solely dependent on the local communities and local residents of the north.

We believe a northern technological research and development institute similar to ones that have been developed in a number of American states could supply many proposals for new approaches and new technologies appropriate to the north. Perhaps the first areas it could look at would be import replacement with regard to food production and small energy generation. That would provide jobs and lower the price differentials that northerners have to endure because of our high cost of living and the distances from southern Ontario.

Finally, and most important in my view, the government should use its revenues from resource extraction to develop a northern Ontario fund, not a $100-million fund over five years, but an ongoing fund tied directly to revenues from resource industries along the lines of the Saskatchewan and Alberta heritage funds or perhaps, on an even smaller scale, the Manitoba mining community reserve fund. These are proposals that I am going to make to the committees of which I am a member.

In our view, the moneys from such a fund could be used for economic development and social development, both overall across the north and in assistance with small communities and the economic proposals that the regional development councils might make. The overall goal of any economic strategy should be to make our lives better. Our economy should be structured in such a way that it serves the needs of the people and their communities.

That might sound like idealistic nonsense but I believe if we start from that principle, we can develop a strategy for getting there. In Ontario it is clear that we need to stabilize the northern economy by strengthening secondary manufacturing and diversifying regional and local economies away from the single industries or sectors. It is clear that we have to develop a public response to the boom-and-bust cycles which undermine stable communities and orderly economic development. It is clear that we have to eliminate the disparities between northern and southern Ontario.

In the north, the challenge is to develop a more self-reliant economy. I believe the necessary human and material resources exist to make northern Ontario as self-reliant as possible. The missing ingredient in the past has been a government with the political will to make the available resources work for the benefit of the people of northern Ontario rather than for the benefit of outside investors.

The question that I hope will begin to be answered in this estimates debate is, are the Liberals prepared to make the government a vehicle for the economic and social development of a self-reliant society in northern Ontario?

Mr. Chairman: Carry on, Minister.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: May I have my people here?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, that is fine. I say to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane), what we are doing is the minister's reply. He will reply to the statements of the critics.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I listened to the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) the other day and heard his remarks about me. I believe he called me Rambo at one point. I want to remind him that Rambo is the most popular official hero of the 1980s. I had no idea he thought so highly of me and I thank him for his comment.

The member also told me and this House that I did nothing for the Hearst airport. Where was he from 1972 to 1980 when we started to build? I am one of the ones who worked for 10 years to get that airport. When I came to Toronto, I negotiated with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. I did not negotiate with the Ministry of Northern Affairs at that time. He came in near the end with $132,000 for the lights, but it took 10 years of fighting to get this airport and I was one of those who fought and worked with my hands to cut the trees down to have an airport. I pass along that little comment.

Another thing that hurt me is, I do not know where he gets the idea that the staff has lost its morale. When a new minister takes over, the former minister should not say things like that. The staff is already in place. Some staff members heard what he said and did not like it because it is not true. I do not think a man of his calibre should touch on such an issue at all. There are times when it is better not to say certain things. Sometimes it hurts that person in later years.

Our staff comes from the previous government. We had several meetings and we put our ideas together. I told them I am new but as long as they are faithful to me, I will be faithful to them. There was only one move made in the form of a promotion and that was Mr. Hobbs. The others remained with me and will stay with me because I love them. I know they are going to work, too. They are with me for the many hours that I am there. They are there because they believe in northern Ontario, not only the people here but also the people in the offices in Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay.

There was a comment regarding no new programs or ideas. I remind the member that the estimates were largely inherited from the previous government when this ministry was under the leadership of the member for Kenora. In spite of that, I am honouring all the commitments made by him, all his programs. In addition, we have introduced major new programs and initiatives in our 1985 budget.

First, everybody has touched on the northern development fund, the ministry of mines, the cabinet committee on northern development, the regional development councils that will be in place in the next few weeks or months, and the Committee on Resource-Dependent Communities. More new programs will be introduced in the estimates for next year.

5:20 p.m.

Our government, as a whole, has introduced many programs that will benefit northern Ontario in the long run. Before introducing new programs, I intend to consult fully with northerners. That is my style and I think northerners prefer that. What I want from this council is a strategy for the north, not only an economic strategy, but a tourist and a social one. After that, we will start to work. We are not looking only at tomorrow; we have to build for the next 10 years. That is what I and my staff intend to do. We intend to work closely with this council, put this on the drawing board and try to come up with strategies my government can address with vigour.

The member for Kenora says I have less money in the budget and less clout in cabinet. If he believes that, that is his business. We will see in the next two or three years what people think about us. Maybe they say I am alone and I will not get anything. However, I would rather be alone and not have to fight with the other ministers.

There was always a fight between the east and the west, if the members recall. I was not here, but the newspapers in my riding said, "This minister is mad at the other one," etc. I do not know what happened. There was an inside fight for power in northern Ontario. By being alone, I do not have to fight. I do not fight myself. Maybe it is better that we try to work together, all parties, all the mayors and reeves, the chambers of commerce and the people of northern Ontario, to try to get what we are after.

Mr. Sterling: Is the minister winning the fight?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I am going to win because I do not have to fight.

They say the southern Ontario cabinet is not visiting the north. I wrote down the suggestion of the procedural affairs committee and I intend to use it as support to get ministers and deputies to the north. My cabinet colleagues have recognized the need to familiarize themselves with all parts of Ontario, including northern Ontario.

Since we last met on these estimates, we have had a full cabinet meeting, the first since the Ministry of Northern Affairs was established. There were 20 ministers along with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in Timmins. There were four ministers of the cabinet committee on northern development in Thunder Bay. On both occasions, the ministers heard from a number of delegations from the area. Several ministers also visited Moosonee to get a first-hand appreciation of the situation there. The Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) was there as well as the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro).

Before the end of January, I am taking another three ministers to Englehart to listen to the area's concerns. All along, my government has stressed an open-door policy. From the Premier down, we are all easily accessible and have travelled to the people of northern Ontario to demonstrate this.

This is only the beginning of our new agenda aimed at serving the people of northern Ontario. I also intend to review the benefits of northern Ontario tours for members. In March, the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro), the Chairman of Management Board (Ms. Caplan) and I will visit the northwest area and the remote reserves. In the same month, some ministers who are part of the northern committee will visit part of the Lake Nipigon riding. We will be in Geraldton and Manitouwadge.

There was a comment about the committee on resource-dependent communities. The member for Kenora said it was a good idea and an excellent committee, but that we would fail because the three-month period is too short. He suggested we make it a committee of the Legislature. This topic has been excessively studied and the time for government study has passed. On that I agree. Now is the time for a broadly representative northern committee to develop a made-in-northern-Ontario solution.

I want to remind my honourable friend not to worry about me. I will produce. I will not leave the reports of those committees full of dust in offices, as I saw with those reports we got on the cost of living and all that. I am serious about it.

The reason I went this route is that I do not want a battle in the committee. If the Liberals vote with the New Democratic Party and the Conservatives vote against it, look at what is going to happen. My friends all tell me the same thing.

That is the reason I chose this way. I want action within three months. During those three months this committee can identify the best ideas and make recommendations for government policies and programs. I want it to report to me, and that will probably be before the budget, to try to convince the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon). If the committee recommends that I need some more people to work full-time on this, it will have to recommend that there be the funds. In response to my friend the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), we will look into this and I will have to convince the Treasurer.

The committee chairman and most of the members are very happy to have a short deadline. They know that if they have good proposals, we will act quickly on them. That is my promise to members and to the committee. I have said that before and I repeat it in the House now.

If people say I will not act, it is because they do not know me yet. They should look at my background. Maybe I was not the best businessman, but in Hearst I was more than just a businessman, because they called me a socialist businessman. I was too close to the people, but I like what they call me over there.

Concerning medical travel assistance, in a small town one has to be close to everybody; one has to work with the poor, not just the rich. The 20,000 people in the Kenora area will not receive medical travel assistance because they are within 300 kilometres of Winnipeg and $75 is taken out of the reimbursement.

First, please keep in mind that free emergency service will be provided on a 24-hour basis for all those who need it. The medical travel program is aimed at those who live a long way from necessary services. This program will provide very significant benefits to many northerners.

I was in my office this weekend and people came rushing in. They like this program. Other people may be saying they do not like it, but I did not receive those comments in my riding. I have three offices and one in Moosonee, which makes four. Those are not northern affairs offices; they are my own. I do not understand what the honourable member is talking about.

I recommend that the members bring hardship cases to the attention of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston). When the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) mentioned the $75, the Minister of Health said, "Nobody will be stuck." We are going to monitor that to see whether this is a problem. The Minister of Health indicated during the estimates debate that the government would consider changes to the program.

About the name of the ministry and why we did not put "native affairs" in it, first of all, we said it should be northern development and Indian affairs at the program session last year, and we put that in the program. After we arrived here, when we took over, we saw all the legal implications and everything. As members know, I am only a small lumberman from Hearst. They said they were going to give me mines, and maybe they thought native affairs would be too much for me.

I made a choice. I said, "Give it to the Attorney General," and they did. I think it is a good choice. There is a committee. All the ministers met again in the committee this morning for two hours, and some other ministry people met from eight o'clock to nine and we came from nine to 11. They met again at 12 o'clock.

As far as native affairs is concerned, I am sure it is in good hands, and my ministry will be there to defend the northern natives. I am speaking of those north of the French River. We did not do that because it was 50:50. That was not the intention. Because there were lots of legal problems, I felt I could not handle it.

5:30 p.m.

As members know, we are committed to treating native affairs and the native people as part of Ontario. I was told by many chiefs from both areas, from north of the 50th parallel, north of the French River, that they were told previously: "We cannot do anything for you. Go to Ottawa. You are Ottawa's problem." That is why the Premier made a promise to the natives in Moosonee last year that we are going to treat them as Ontarians. That is the commitment we are making today. That is what we said a few months ago to them and I am restating that in this House today; we are going to treat them as part of Ontario.

I also want to announce today that as of tomorrow I have hired Frank Beardy to be one of my executive assistants. We will have an office in Thunder Bay and that will be my office and his. I intend to go to Thunder Bay at least twice a month to be closer to the people of that region and the northwest. I want them to be sure they are part of Ontario.

When the ministry people were in the northwest, the northeast and the south too, they were far away from Toronto. For a long time we thought everything was going northwest, but this time we will try to divide the province between the northwest and northeast so everybody will benefit from the government money.

I have been looking for another native from the east to put to work, too. I am waiting for the recommendation from the different associations to choose the right man. I asked the Nishnawbe-Aski nation to give me a name, and this name came up and I chose it.

Tomorrow I will start to review with him the areas that are very close to their hearts. First, I want them to explain to me what they really mean by self-government. From there, we are going to work together to establish one northern development council for the north. I am talking about the whole north and all natives. There will be two in the north for the natives, one in the northwest and one in the northeast.

The northern affairs officers will continue to deliver the same high level of service as in the past, retaining their information and program delivery role. Although some shift in responsibilities is anticipated to strengthen their role in community development, the NAOs who work will stay in place. Indeed, I have expanded the NAO system with a new office in Parry Sound and a new service in Nipigon. The member for Kenora said he was afraid we were going to leave that. We do not have 39; there are 30 or 31 or 32.

Mr. Bernier: What about Parry Sound? Why was it not announced?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Parry Sound was not announced because when I came to the ministry there was nothing for Parry Sound. I am the one who decided the office in Parry Sound would exist. There had been no action on it. I took action on it right away, the first week I was there.

Mr. Bernier: The minister is wrong.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Look at the figures. The member knows there was nothing for Parry Sound or Nipigon. Why did he not do it before he left? If it was that important, he should have done it seven years ago, but he waited.

Mr. Bernier: The minister got the wrong advice.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: There was no office when I arrived in Parry Sound seven months ago. The guy who is going there is working right now in an office over there. That is not the wrong advice; that is the truth. There were no offices there. I had to go before the Management Board of Cabinet to get permission to open that office.

Gas pricing is at the Ministry of Energy's end. We heard about it today. He is supposed to file that some time before this session is prorogued.

Milk pricing and marketing is a battle I am fighting, as are all members from the north. I have written to my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) suggesting discussions with the Ontario Dairy Council and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board to seek appropriate solutions.

What scares me about this milk pricing is not only the marketing, but also the way it seems all those dairies are falling into the hands of a few. We are all afraid of monopolies and some dairies are part of large chains. They are using them as loss leaders, and that is hurting some areas. They are going farther from the north with dairies so the poor farmers have to pay freight from the place of origin to the dairies, and that creates this added cost. I am serious about it and I am going to discuss that with my friend the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

With respect to the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment, in my statement I mentioned some of the initiatives that have already been taken by this government to respond to the issues raised by Mr. Fahlgren. For example, there are the independent forest inventory audit and the new Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. A regional development council will be established and a $100-million northern development fund. Appropriate line ministries are responding to specific recommendations. We are aware that several individuals and groups have views on the report. These will be carefully taken into consideration by this government as we move ahead to improve conditions throughout northern Ontario.

I took into consideration all that was said about this by the member for Algoma. We will be making a list of the way in which each line ministry is heading, and we will present that to him and to the member for Kenora.

Last weekend the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce met to discuss the Falhgren report and I had some people from my ministry there. I will get a brief report from them about what the association thinks about the report. We are taking this very seriously. That is one of the reasons I hired native people to work for me. We want to know what they think about the report. Some of them do not want us to have a third tier of government. They do not want that at all. We will have to get their ideas as to what they want.

As to the need for new industry in Ear Falls, the ministry recognizes the needs of Ear Falls and is doing everything possible to help ease its adjustment to the mine closure and to find new job opportunities. The capability and potential use of area forest resources are being investigated. Pulp and paper development at this point is not practical, but some development is being studied. However, because of the low demand and the current excess capacity, near-term development for this industry may not be viable at this point. The ministry will continue to assist the community in all possible ways.

In this area, I am speaking with a local entrepreneur who runs a sawmill in Hudson. We are going to try to help him establish a bigger land base. At this point, this could help Ear Falls a little. We know there is a surplus of lumber in this area and we will keep that in mind for future expansion of the sawmill.

With regard to the tourist seminar cancellation, the seminar was not cancelled, but merely deferred. The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and my ministry are working closely to prepare for a series of effective tourism consultation seminars for northern Ontario which the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) announced at the NOTO convention. MTR, the Ministry of Natural Resources and my ministry are working on co-ordinating northern Ontario tourism efforts. Tourism development will be a very high priority for the regional development councils.

5:40 p.m.

I am very enthusiastic about participating in a conference of northern ministers. The conference of northern ministers was postponed, not cancelled, because the change of government in Ontario happened so close to the previously scheduled conference in Minaki Lodge for September 1985. The location and timing of the next conference will be discussed with my fellow northern ministers.

Concerning the Assessment Act, the legislation and policies are currently under review by my colleague the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp). I am sure they are going to look into all the property tax reforms for the north.

Concerning the status of the information kiosks, as I mentioned in my estimates speech, much needs to be done to improve the service information centre system in the north to make it a more co-ordinated approach of the various components. We are placing even greater emphasis on the provision of tourist information facilities in the north, both staffed and unstaffed. They have proved to be effective in enticing tourists to stay longer in the north, spend more money and make return visits. The construction of unmanned kiosks will be assisted where feasible, but staffed tourist information centres have proved more cost-effective in generating increased tourist revenues.

Concerning Northern Ontario Development Corp. loans to smaller resorts, NODC already has two programs for which smaller resorts are eligible: the tourism term loan program, which provides loans at a preferred interest rate of 10 per cent, and the tourism redevelopment incentive program, or TRIP, which provides interest subsidies and loan guarantees. However, the problem is recognized and our policies are under review. Part of this review will really be the need for making capital assistance available under the northern Ontario regional development program.

Concerning the extended tax rebate for tourists to Ontario, the intent of the rebate is to attract visitors to the province, and it is working. The higher cost of travelling outside Ontario is already a significant incentive for Ontarians to vacation at home. The government will remain sensitive to the impact on the tourism industry, and in particular tax measures.

Regarding the assistance committee for participation in Ontario North Now, there is some discussion about who would institute such a program. Some say my honourable friend the member for Kenora did not do it, and I will leave it to the experts to tell me who did it first. It appears from the number of municipalities attending on a return basis that such a system is not necessary, but I am prepared to look into it. We are talking about Sioux Lookout. When I was there the chamber of commerce came to see me. They were willing to travel to Toronto, so we will look into that. If that really is the case, then we will have to reassess our position.

My ministry helps municipalities in other ways through the provision of space and equipment. This year my ministry will be adding new audio-visual equipment to Ontario North Now and providing other equipment for the use of municipalities, additional brochures, racks for municipalities and improved signage, inside and out.

Concerning the status of the famous Dash 8, this government is committed to ensuring the provision of good-quality air service in northern Ontario. An intensive staff review of the employment of the Dash 8 is under way. Input will include the Stokes report and private sector operators. A sensible balance will be achieved between level of service, points served and the costs involved. I plan to discuss recommendations with cabinet colleagues in the near future.

The two Dash 8s will not be available for service until the fall of 1986.

Mr. Mancini: How about those water bombers? When are they going to be ready?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I do not know. They are retrofitting one, and they are finding other faults with it. It is rumoured that there are cracks. The other one is apparently going to take more time than was anticipated.

Concerning passenger rail service, if Via Rail goes bankrupt, I do not know what we are going to do. Still, that was part of the deal. The government is committed to providing an adequate level of passenger rail service in northeastern Ontario. The bi-level purchase decision is on hold until the much larger Via deal with the Urban Transportation Development Corp. and Bombardier is concluded. It will be advantageous for UTDC to tag on to this large order. Some prices came out; they were expecting prices of $2.5 million and they came out at $3.7 million.

We are trying to get hold of Via, to find out which way it is going. Ontario Northland made a presentation to Via; my friend was there. We have not yet received an answer. Now we have heard about the price, but we do not know whether it is for our cars or their cars; we are asking for a different model, but this order is all in here right now.

A staff review is under way to ensure service improvements are cost-effective, and the government plans to consult with the public prior to any decision. I am going to do the same thing as I did with the Dash 8. I will have two commissioners and an independent chairman go around, because I think we have to look at other kinds of --

Mr. Bernier: Do not stall.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Stalling? That was the member's attitude for 42 years; that is his problem. I am not stalling. I am from the northeast and the member is from the northwest. I think that is why the member never did a thing in his life.

Mr. Bernier: Do something.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I will do something. I want the service that we want, not the one that is dictated by Via or by Piché. I have not seen Piché on a train in the past five years. The double decker is only a dream of his.

Mr. Bernier: Give us some answers.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: The member will get them in due course, when it is time.

I am going to have a committee meeting with the people and see what kind of schedule they want. There are two problems in the northeast. The train service and the schedule are problems; nobody has decided on a schedule yet. The committee will decide what schedule we are going to use. That will be forthcoming. This was asked by a committee in 1977 and was never answered. It was also asked in 1963 and never answered. The committee is left with what to do today.

Refurbishing of the single-level cars is on schedule. Maybe those are the ones we are going to use, instead of the bilevel ones.

Northern roads program: The 1986-87 northern roads program is in the process of being developed. The program will be announced early in the fiscal year, as it has been in the past.

There were some questions by my friend the member for Kenora about Nordev and what is happening with it. When I became minister, I found too little money had been put aside for Nordev. My first job was to find the dollars to keep it going while we decided what best served northern business needs. I did this and there now is ample money available for Nordev for the foreseeable future. I have asked for a review of Nordev and this is under way. I also intend to ask the regional development council for its views on Nordev and possible successor programs.

The member referred to keeping the same name. Perhaps by next week I will change all the names. Perhaps I will change Nordev and AgriNorth to something else. I will be as bad as the member if I keep the same names, so I will change them. The member did not follow me at all.

Mr. Bernier: Big promises and changing names.

5:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: After what I listened to today about promises, I think the member should look at what his party did in the northeast and what it got, with all the promises in the last 15 years.

Mr. Reville: It did nothing.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: The member is always referring to Kenora; he should tell us what is happening in Cochrane and Timmins. We suffered and we are still suffering. They tell me all the programs were going to the northwest; I do not know.

Mr. Bernier: The minister is trying to split the north.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I am listening.

Mr. Bernier: He is not going to succeed.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Why is there always a fight between the minister from Timmins and the last one from Kenora? There must be some reason for that. The reason is the northeast figured it was not getting its share. That is why we were fighting with him.

I have some figures from 1978, when Mr. Brunelle told me the same thing. I notice we got only 45 per cent in 1978.

Mr. Bernier: There is only one minister out there.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Assistance with agriculture: I wonder whether the previous government paid enough attention to that area. We are now working with the Minister of Agriculture and Food on the evaluation of AgriNorth to determine how we might help more effectively.

We also consult closely with the regional development councils on agricultural issues. We discussed the figure for this program with the farmers today in northern Ontario, and I admit they liked it. However, they may need another program because there will be a time when they have to stop tiling. There will be no more farm land to tile so we have to look at other programs for them.

I heard from my friend. the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay) that the farmers were left on their own. Policies were always dictated by the farmers in the south or the people making policies in Guelph, and they wanted to have a northern agricultural policy. We are going to work with the councils to have that.

On the wild rice issue, a management strategy is being developed by my ministry in cooperation with the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the office of native affairs policy. Discussions with native and non-native groups have been started to assist in developing this strategy. My ministry intends to pursue every possible means of developing wild rice as a viable industry.

I agree that the Drainage Act dealing with municipal drains and the Tile Drainage Act dealing with all farm subsurfaces should be reviewed to ensure appropriateness to northern needs and circumstances.

With respect to the need for a roving NAO to deal with native issues: l met here and in the north with my native groups. I was pleased with this meeting and I believe the natives are, too. As I said, I have appointed Frank Beardy, deputy chief of Muskrat Dam, as my special assistant with an office here and in Thunder Bay to help me and my minister on native issues.

I see that my friend is afraid the development councils will not have clout but they will. They will be a key sounding board for developing strategy and programs in the north. I will be asking them for ideas on a range of issues from tourism to agriculture. Their recommendations will be closely considered by me and the cabinet committee on northern development.

With respect to the assistant deputy minister's move from Kenora to Thunder Bay, it is being made to serve the people of northwestern Ontario better. Thunder Bay is at the centre of the region and access to all points is good. Access to Toronto is important for the ADM, as an important part of my executive team providing a northern view in policy and program development. I am sure the region, including Kenora, will be well served.

The ADM's work will be more effective this way. I am prepared to be judged in the future on the wisdom of this move. I must again point out that the Kenora office will be strengthened by the addition of the regional director of mines.

On the $100 tax credit, this was one way we proposed to deal with the cost of living of people working in the north. I will be reviewing this and other measures in the future together with my colleagues in cabinet.

Concerning the housing needs survey, when I asked my northern affairs offices to do this housing survey for the ministry, I did not do it with any intention of undermining the Minister of Housing. I was doing it just to be sure that northern Ontario's needs would be met and so that I could fight in cabinet for the right housing for northern Ontario.

As members recall, my friend the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) asked me on Friday why northern Ontario housing was always left at the bottom of the list going back to the home ownership made easy plan and all the other programs. I want to remind members that there has not been a provincial program on housing since the HOME program. The rest was added on by the feds. When we came as northerners, we were always left at the bottom of the list.

Now I am going to try to fight to get our full share of housing. If the population of northern Ontario represents 14.4 per cent of the total population, we should get the exact percentage that we need. We have two problems in housing in the north: that of senior citizens and with rent-geared-to-income housing. We will try to work our way with rent geared to income to 50 per cent of the project. As we go along in the north, we are encouraging all municipalities to get organized in nonprofit operations, because the only way we will get our fair share of housing is if we are prepared in advance. The next thing is that they will all be built under this kind of corporation.

At the same time, the NAOs are the listening posts in the north. We did that for insurance and we are doing it for housing, too.

Concerning the Toyota plant, I would like to remind my honourable friend that what I said in the north was that if we are going to grow, if we are going to make a change soon, we need the Toyota plant. I said this in Sault Ste. Marie, and everyone wrote the Toyota people to get the Toyota plant all over the north. If we are going to get such a plant, we will have to do it in one area at a time and concentrate on this area. We could look at Parry Sound or Sault Ste. Marie to start with.

When we see what the Toyota people ask for as criteria to build a plant, we know it will not come to the north tomorrow morning. We are about 35 years too late. If the previous government had started to push the manufacture in the north not only of the cars but also of parts, it would have been all right.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps Mr. Fontaine will end his remarks and move that the committee rise and report.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Why did the member not say anything about the Ford plant before, in 1952?

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

ROYAL ASSENT

The Deputy Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his chambers.

Clerk of the House: The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 11, An Act to revise the Change of Name Act;

Bill 12, An Act to amend the Children's Law Reform Act;

Bill 13, An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act;

Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton;

Bill Pr17, An Act respecting Children's Oncology Care of Ontario Inc.;

Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the city of Mississauga.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

20 janvier 1986