31st Parliament, 1st Session

L046 - Wed 9 Nov 1977 / Mer 9 nov 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.




Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that a tentative settlement was reached last night between the government and the Ontario Public Services Employees Union on salary increases for bargaining unit employees in the administrative services category.

This is one of the three contracts which expired on September 30 last.

The agreement was arrived at with the help of a mediator appointed by the Ontario Public Services Labour Relations Tribunal, and, if ratified by the employees concerned, will provide increases ranging from 6.1 per cent for the highest paid employees in the group to 8.6 per cent for those in the lowest salary range. The average cost of the settlement is approximately 1.1 per cent and is within the limits established by the Anti-Inflation Act.


Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I had intended today to make quite a lengthy statement. With your approval, I will table my lengthy statement and stay with my short statement.

I wish to inform the members that I have reached an agreement with the Mennonite Central Committee regarding concerns of the Old Order Amish about the can-to-bulk conversion for industrial milk.

Members may recall that when this question first arose, we suggested two alternatives, namely the conversion to cream shipping only or the building of communal bulk tanks off the farm. Although the communal tank was initially accepted, it later ran into problems. Throughout this entire time I have conducted informal talks with the Mennonite Central Committee, and during one of these informal talks a point was raised that seemed well worth pursuing

According to the committee, there was no objection to the use of gasoline or diesel-powered engines. I discussed the use of this type of engine for the cooling of a bulk tank with the Ontario Milk Commission, which agreed that this arrangement would meet the intent of the health regulations.

I was about to announce that we were prepared to amend the regulations to allow for this type of tank on October 27. That was the day, however, when the Amish launched their appeal with the cabinet. Instead I announced the postponement of the implementation of the regulation.

In the last week the Premier (Mr. Davis) and I have met with Mr. John Laskin and Mr. Ian Hunter, the official legal representatives appointed by the Mennonite Central Committee to represent the Amish. I myself met with the Amish in Kitchener on the weekend and I’m happy to say that a solution acceptable to all is in sight.

The Amish have informed me that our proposal that they operate their bulk tank by direct-drive gasoline or diesel-powered engines has met with the approval of three of the five Amish communities concerned. The other two are not opposed. They have some reservations but are mainly concerned with whether to switch to cream shipping or to bulk shipment.

The importance of this development is twofold from the point of view of the Amish community. It means that they can continue to operate their dairy farms without electricity. It also laid to rest their concern about the survival of their family farms and their ability to pass farms from father to son.

I have asked the Ontario Milk Marketing Board to meet with the Amish to discuss their concerns about the handling and marketing of their milk. I have also informed the board that I would be prepared to accompany the Amish to this meeting. The board has agreed to a meeting, scheduled for later this month.

From the outset of our discussions we have endeavoured to explore every possible alternative. This government does not have to be reminded of the valuable contributions made by the Amish to the social fabric of this province. Our problem was finding a solution that would safeguard provincial health standards and would not cause undue hardship. Mr. Speaker, we have met both these objectives.



Ms. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. It’s not so bad, Jim, relax.

Mr. Lewis: Relax? He’s almost comatose.

Mr. S. Smith: Is the minister aware of proposals of the Atomic Energy Control Board to the federal government suggesting that the federal government establish a separate arm’s-length-away agency to handle nuclear waste? Does the minister not feel, as I do, that the provincial government should have some involvement with any such proposals, in the sense of a federal-provincial secretariat or a federal-provincial agency of some kind to handle the matter of nuclear wastes? Is this not the time to get involved in those discussions now that the matter is just at the proposal stage, so that we in this province, with our great concern for the environment -- as has been demonstrated with our Port Hope problems and, of course, the near problem at Madoc and so on -- could make that suggestion and be involved with the federal government at the planning stage of the nuclear waste agency?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I guess I’m as familiar as the Leader of the Opposition with the recent news report. May I say that my ministry is in continual touch in that regard and we have done considerable work in connection with the overall concept of waste management and the different aspects of it.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Would the minister to some extent be willing to take us and the public into his confidence and let us know what proposals he and his ministry have made to the federal government, and whether they are, in fact, planning a submission at this time so as to make the proposed nuclear waste agency truly a federal-provincial one, rather than leaving it totally and completely under the auspices of the federal government, despite what the laws happen to be at the time?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: May I inform the Leader of the Opposition and the House that this whole area concerned me shortly after becoming Minister of Energy, especially as it focused on a site near Madoc for waste management. When I looked at the background of that I very quickly made a decision that this was not the way to proceed. We had the AECL at the federal level and, of course, Ontario Hydro at the provincial level, two Crown agencies that might very well be running ahead of government insofar as government had not determined what its policy would be.

I called the federal minister, Mr. Gillespie, and made arrangements to see him in Ottawa in connection with that. I brought to his attention my concern and suggested we might define our respective roles and responsibilities in connection with this area. That proposition was accepted at the federal level. Since then, we have been working in this whole area. As members can appreciate, there is a mixed jurisdiction and it is necessary to determine what provincial responsibilities are in regard to the fact that we in this province, through Ontario Hydro, are a large consumer of uranium.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: I wonder what the minister has to suggest to the people in the Chalk River area, for example, who are receiving much of the nuclear waste of this particular province and what specific proposal he might bring to the federal Minister of Energy to prevent a situation occurring in the future that forces such extraordinary cost upon the people of this province in terms of carrying that waste such a great distance. I think the cost is well over the $1-million mark right now. I am wondering what specific proposals the minister might have to prevent that kind of costly situation from recurring?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I think our major concern in Ontario is the waste and irradiated fuel that results from the utilization of natural uranium in our reactors. I think that is the big problem and we have facilities to accommodate that on our sites so that it is not a question of transferring great volumes of waste or irradiated fuel to Chalk River.

If one transports the irradiated fuel, for example, to a central site or interim storage or long-term storage, the handling is going to run into a considerable amount of money. There is no question about that. It’s a cost that I think is incidental to our use of uranium and which we can accommodate. But the member should remember we have quite an investment in this province in irradiated fuel. It’s not a liability. It’s really an economic asset.

Mr. S. Smith: Could I ask one more supplementary to this question which comes from the last words? If the minister regards irradiated fuel as an asset, do I take it then he is in support of the idea that we should reprocess this fuel for further use in more advanced reactors? If so, would he please make that clear as government policy because I would certainly take issue with him?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: There is no government policy developed as yet on reprocessing.

Mr. Warner: On just about anything.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: It’s a policy that would have to be enunciated by the federal government. As the Leader of the Opposition may know, there was a meeting of seven nations in London on May 7 -- Prime Minister Trudeau was there -- at which time it was agreed to make a study in connection with advanced fuel cycles and the aspect of reprocessing. It was expected that would defer the decision for about two years.


I say it’s an asset because there are certainly countries in the world that do reprocess. England reprocesses at Windscale and France reprocesses. I think Windscale has lost some business because of events there. Japan, for example, has given probably half of its business to France rather than to England. That is a loss of business. I’m sure that Windscale, for example, would consider reprocessing of our fuel if we made that overture. It could very well be that the reprocessed fuel could then be sold to other nations which have a need for it, because there are over 40 nations in this world that are using uranium in the generation of electricity. What I’m saying is that there really is an asset there.

Mr. Reed: Supplementary: Since there is obviously, according to the minister, a cost factor involved, either positive or negative as the case may he depending on government decision, will the minister make sure that Ontario Hydro includes cost of this kind of waste disposal in its nuclear generation program, so that the true cost of this nuclear program is figured into Hydro’s price of power generation?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I’m sure that the cost of fuel and fuel management would certainly be factored into the cost of production of electricity through nuclear reactors. May I say, though, that fuel as a percentage of cost of the electricity in a nuclear plant is about three-quarters of one per cent, as opposed to 21 per cent of the total cost of production of electricity by coal.

Mr. Speaker: We’ve spent 10 minutes on that question.


Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the minister in charge of interministerial cooperation with regard to Indian affairs. I guess that would be the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Is the minister able to tell us what has happened in the Kenora office of the Indian community secretariat? Is he able to tell us why it is that a staff of five people has dwindled due to resignations until the only person there is a secretary-receptionist who from time to time answers the phone? What happened to this vaunted notion of interministerial co-operation and this marvellous secretariat that the government was setting up?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I’m just aware that there was one vacancy. One of the senior persons has left for another position that he accepted in the province of Manitoba where the remuneration was higher. I am not aware that there is such a shortage of staff as the hon. Leader of the Opposition mentions, but I’ll be pleased to look into it.

Mr. 5 Smith: When he’s looking into it, can the provincial secretary comment on the charge that’s been made by the person who left that there was really no interministerial co-operation allowing meaningful development in that area, and can he, in fact, explain to this House how it is that this vaunted idea of an Indian community secretariat has been allowed to dwindle down to the point where it has neither personnel nor function?

Is he doing anything with regard to the devastated economy of that area consequent upon the mercury pollution which has occurred, and what is the policy of this government with regard to the Grassy Narrows and Whitedog reserves, given the fact that their economy has been devastated?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: As far as the services to native people in northern Ontario are concerned, I’m not aware that there has been a deterioration of services. The services are still being provided. As for the Grassy Narrows and the Whitedog Indian reserves, the fish-for-food program is still in effect, it is still being done and there are various programs, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition probably knows. There is an interministerial committee, federal and provincial, which has been working with the native people of those two Indian reserves on various programs. I’m not aware of any of the problems that the leader refers to.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary, coming right back to the first question which the Leader of the Opposition asked? Is it true that the government has farmed out by way of private contract to a management consultant firm a review of the Indian development secretariat in the Ministry of Culture and Recreation to which the member for Hamilton West referred? Can he table the terms of reference of that review of the Indian community secretariat in this Legislature, and can he tell us which of the native people’s groups the management firm has discussed these matters with?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The Indian community secretariat comes directly under the Ministry of Culture and Recreation. I am aware that there is an internal review of the secretariat. However, I do believe it is up to that minister to make that information available to the hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, the provincial secretary is the minister co-ordinating all of these matters as I understand it. Is it true that he has hired a private management consultant firm to review the activities of the Indian community secretariat and its future?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That could well be.

Mr. Lewis: You don’t know?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I don’t know.

Mr. Warner: Right on the ball.

Mr. Lewis: Neither do I, but I am asking.


Mr. Lewis: May I ask a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism? Has the minister been in touch with Inco about the amounts of money which Inco is investing in venture capital undertakings and the areas where those investments may take place?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I’m not aware of the venture capital investments that the hon. leader of the NDP refers to. If there is one, we’ll take it under advisement in the ministry.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does it not strike the minister as peculiar that Inco, this company in so much economic difficulty, has all kinds of money, apparently millions of dollars, to invest in venture equity capital right now on the marketplace, advertising, none of which is to be directed towards the Sudbury basin? Can the minister explain that?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, I cannot.

Mr. Warner: You’re too busy travelling.


Mr. Lewis: May I ask a question of the Minister of Labour? Does the Minister of Labour know that Michael Starr, the chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, is now publicly on record as saying that the Workmen’s Compensation Board will probably be replaced in the future with a universal insurance scheme in the province of Ontario?


Mr. Lewis: Since on this one occasion I am prepared to attribute to Mr. Starr prophetic wisdom, may I ask the minister whether that mirrors government policy since he stated it categorically?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I think the chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board was expressing a personal view related to his experience and the knowledge that he has gained in his present role --

Mr. Wildman: He wants to get out of it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and examining the experience of those jurisdictions which have moved in this direction. I think he is suggesting that several light years down the road this sort of thing might happen in Canada as well.

Mr. Swart: It will be with you.

Mr. Conway: That’s the speed.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m not sure that he was saying that specifically about the province of Ontario.

Mr. Wildman: That’s the speed at which your government goes.

Hon. B. Stephenson: But I think he feels that this is the direction probably in which movement will take place in the future.

Mr. Roy: He is very prophetic about the government.

Mr. O’Neil: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Labour what her views are along this line?

Mr. Lewis: That is what I thought I asked.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, that isn’t the question that the hon. member for Scarborough West asked. I am very interested in watching carefully --

Mr. Samis: In the fullness of time.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- the experience which has been gained in New Zealand, the one jurisdiction which has moved specifically in that direction. There are so many problems with that program right at the moment that it is, I gather, a little hit dubious whether it may survive.

Mr. Lewis: Slander. Shame, shame. Michael Starr knows better.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, that’s entirely true. None the less, this is an interesting experiment which I think is going to be of great value to all jurisdictions --

Mr. Warner: Get moving along with it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- which have to deal with this kind of problem. I think it’s the kind of information which will be invaluable to us in developing future programs.

Mr. Laughren: In view of the fact that the chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board has admitted there needs to be some kind of umbrella protection for people in the province, I’m wondering whether or not people within the Labour ministry or at the board are investigating, along the lines that the Saskatchewan people did, the possibility of establishing this in the province of Ontario, and to not dismiss the whole question out of hand?

Hon. B. Stephenson: There was no intention on my part to dismiss this out of hand. As I said, we are watching with great interest the developments of similar programs in other jurisdictions.

Mr. McClellan: You said light years.

Hon. B. Stephenson: They have met, as I said, many problems in trying to develop these programs. I think we can gain a good deal of knowledge from their experience in this field and we shall continue to watch them carefully.

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can she recall about a year ago last December a resolution passed in the ministry’s estimates, and adopted by the ministry, that n study he initiated to cover this particular area of a comprehensive plan for injured workers in Ontario? I believe that ale said, based on a letter that I had directed to her, that the study would be completed by June of this year. Is that study now completed?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not. One preliminary report has been received. I anticipate that we will have the total report by the middle or the end of December of this year.

Mr. Laughren: Do the Liberals support this?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Indeed, the direction which was given to us during those discussions by that resolution will have been completed by that time and we shall have a report.

Mr. Reid: Will you table the report?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Oh, I would think so.


Mr. Reid: Will you table the report?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to take that under consideration.


Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Is the Premier aware that an opinion from Mr. Scullion, the acting deputy director of the Crown law office, has totally blocked my efforts to properly review the Community and Social Services estimates, specifically the amount of money expended on Browndale, Ontario? And that the minister, citing this opinion, has even refused to tell the committee how much money is currently flowing to Browndale including any information as to the present per diem? Would the Premier undertake to have this matter reviewed to ensure that we are able to receive at least the information pertaining to the present budget in that ministry or being reviewed in that ministry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not aware of any legal opinion that has been given on this matter but knowing the objectivity and the fair-mindedness of the hon. member for St. George and her own respect for legal opinions and the process of law, I’m sure that she must want to be guided, as is the ministry, by these legal opinions. I’d be quite prepared, short of giving a legal opinion of my own, which I’m always very reluctant to do --


Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t want to answer all these interjections. I would only say to the member for Ottawa East that if I really were in a position of choosing a legal opinion from the Attorney General or from the member for Ottawa East --

Mr. Roy: My record is better than his.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know something of the member’s record in the courts and he has lost more than one case.


Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, in the good old days he even lost some very easy prosecutions. Any assistant Crown Attorney out of Osgoode could have had them.

Mr. Roy: I am not even a QC and I value my opinion better than his.

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was diverted. I will say this to the member for Ottawa East, he certainly has been in the courts more recently than the Attorney General or myself -- probably like yesterday.

Mr. Roy: That is right. I am in shape -- in great form.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will be delighted to look into this for the hon. member.


Mrs. Campbell: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the government’s refusal since 1974 to answer questions regarding Browndale finances represents stonewalling which pre-dates the police investigation by nearly two years, would the Premier not agree that the opinion from this office is now being used to add legitimacy to the cover up of this subject? Can he assure us that when the police finally dispose of their investigation we will obtain the information we are seeking and that all papers, records and documents pertaining thereto will be preserved pending that information being given?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the hon. member started out her semi-question statement by saying “would the Premier not agree.” I guess I can give a very simple answer to that, Mr. Speaker: Yes, the Premier would not agree.

Mrs. Campbell: I have a supplementary:

Would the Premier at least go as far as to assure this House that he will see that all the documents and papers referring to this particular item will be preserved and available to us following the completion of the investigation by the OPP?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can’t undertake things that are not within the purview of the government or the ministry. That would be, I think, an unfair commitment to give or for the hon. member to ask. She is asking if there are any documents, or whatever it is that she would love to get her hands on, and I don’t even know what they are, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly I do my best to please the hon. member on all issues, as she well knows -- that is all issues raised here in the House. I certainly would undertake that any documentation in the ministry will not disappear. I can’t account for documents that might appear in some brown envelope under the hon. member’s door; I can’t control that sort :of situation. But certainly I will make every effort to see that there isn’t a disappearance of these documents that the hon. member is so anxious about.


Mr. Deans: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Is the Ontario Police Commission currently investigating, or are they about to investigate or have they been asked to investigate, the alleged brutalities being undertaken by the Burlington city police and Burlington regional police? In particular, would the minister look at the news story reported in yesterday’s edition of The Spectator with regard to some statements made by a Roy Murden, which seems to indicate that he, having been a policeman in Burlington, had taken part in some rather serious brutality on a number of people who had been arrested by the Burlington police?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I thank the member for Wentworth f or drawing this to my attention. I can’t tell him whether the OPC has or has not been asked to investigate the matter but I will certainly read the article. I am not aware of it but I will make myself aware of it and report back to him.

Mr. Deans: One supplementary question:

Would the Solicitor General direct himself particularly to the statement by Mr. Murden that although he agreed to discuss his tactics he would not be specific about names and dates because he could still be liable to criminal action? Would the minister also determine whether in fact there are people who have been severely treated by Mr. Murden or others, and look back into the files of the Solicitor General’s office to complaints which I registered about two years ago with regard to the Burlington police actions -- I can’t remember the exact date -- to determine whether this is an on-going problem?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We will do that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Dealing with accusations of police brutalities and citizens’ complaints, when are we going to see that legislation dealing with citizen --

Mr. Speaker: No, the original question was very specific about an incident in Burlington.

Mr. Roy: That would apply to the Burlington citizens complaint bureau.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is why you lose cases.

Mr. Speaker: Order.


Mr. Ashe: I have a question for the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Germa: Another setup.

Mr. Conway: Just remember to be diplomatic.

Mr. Wildman: Where is John Williams?

Mr. Ashe: There has been a rather lengthy strike that has been taking place in my riding, and I would just like to ask the minister what the current status is of the strike situation regarding the Sandra Instant Coffee Company in Ajax?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted, after a very difficult period of time, to announce that our disputes advisory committee was successful last evening and that, indeed, a settlement was reached which was ratified by both parties this morning.


Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Are you sorry you told them?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Minister of Housing will come to order he can answer that question that was asked yesterday.


Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the hon. member for Oshawa asked if I would tell him and the House how much money the ministry had received through the sale of land.

To date, we have marketed land for 717 residential units in eight municipalities, and, given the current market conditions, by the end of this fiscal year we expect to have marketed land for about 2,400 units. At this volume of residential land sales, together with any attendant commercial, industrial and institutional land sales, we would expect cash flow on the profit side during this fiscal year of about $1,432,000.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That surprises the member, doesn’t it?

Mr. Breaugh: No, it is nice to see that if we are going to speculate we can make some money from it. By way of supplementary, could the minister now clarify exactly how he will use that money for further housing programs? How does he intend to make that work?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As the hon. member knows, and I think fully endorses and supports, there are a number of fine programs within the ministry that require funding. This money is being realized on these land sales and will he used to apply to various housing programs --

Mr. Breaugh: Like what?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- some of which are doing an excellent job in his own riding at the present time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Unlike the member.

Mr. Breaugh: I know that the minister is a wonderful person and everything he does is wonderful, but could he be just a little more specific? Is he prepared to take that $1.4 million and reinvest that in the kind of employment programs, like we do with home renewal, that might assist us in the unemployment problems we are having this winter?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The money we would realize would be invested in such programs as home renewal and others which require substantial funding and that would, of course, assist in the employment problems throughout the province.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Maybe you could do better.

Mr. Lewis: Since, as I recall, in this House lust a week or two ago the minister was going to make what he calls a profit on the cash flow side of some $3 million in the Kitchener area alone, where is the ministry losing money, which is an unusual phenomenon?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think the hon. member realizes that in the case of Kitchener we were talking about a prolonged period of time for the sale of the total number of acres, which was 300-odd acres of land. This is in this one fiscal year.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Given that the minister has indicated he is not prepared to sell land at cost because he doesn’t want the initial buyer to be able to reap a profit by then selling it at market value, has he considered instead a forgiveable mortgage for that differential between the ministry’s cost and the market value, say spread over 15 or 20 years, which would guarantee that the original buyer would not be able to sell for a profit because the ministry could continue to hold that mortgage, and thus permit many more families to be able to afford a home of their own? Has he considered that as an alternative?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I have not.

Mr. Sweeney: Would he?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am prepared to consider any suggestions that seem to have some reason to them, yes.


Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. I wonder if the minister could give us some background on the recent announcement that only those areas having district health councils will be eligible for provincial lottery funds to finance research and development projects?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The hon. member has put it into something of a different context than the way in which it was originally put. The $25 million from the lottery which is for health and environmental health-related research breaks into a number of areas, including capital construction, purchase or replacement of equipment, teaching positions in the health sciences centres, grants to the statutory foundations and grants to the non-statutory foundations, as well as an amount for the ministry’s own grants-in-aid program for health research. There is also an amount for the district health councils to carry out research in their respective areas for whatever purposes.

I am not quite sure the way the member took it, but I think he took it in a rather different sense than the very positive one that was intended.,

Mr. O’Neil: Likely I have, and I think a lot of other people across the province are doing so. As a supplementary, since the approach of the Health ministry has been that the establishment of these district health councils has been on a voluntary basis, does he not feel that the disbursement of lottery funds in this manner could have a detrimental effect on the voluntary aspect, and is that his intention?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sorry, on the voluntary aspect of what? District health councils?

Mr. O’Neil: The establishment of health councils.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, I don’t. Not at all. For instance, as the hon. member may or may not know, in the Ottawa-Carleton region there is an extensive needs study under way under the auspices of the district health council in co-operation with the faculty of the University of Ottawa. There, the ministry is paying half the cost of that research, albeit not out of the provincial lottery funds.

In the future I can see that that kind of study, or looking at mental health problems, long-care needs or whatever, taken in the context of long-range region or county-wide planning, could well be considered for provincial lottery funding. I really don’t see that that’s in any way going to take away from the volunteerism aspect of the district health councils any more than I see it in any way diminishing the voluntary aspects of the efforts of the statutory and non-statutory research foundations.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: I wonder if I might ask the minister, though, about the Belleville-Trenton area. They are presently considering whether or not to establish a district health council; if they decide not to establish one, would those lottery funds be available to them?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Unless there is a non-statutory, disease-related research foundation in the area, there would be no body in the area that I am aware of -- a body that is as all-embracing as a district health council -- that would be eligible for grants. There are hospital planning groups and other kinds of planning groups, but all working separate one from the other. District health councils at least bring together people from a variety of backgrounds and look at the total health care needs of a county or of a region. The answer is, I don’t know that there would be any other groups that would be eligible.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary; the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. S. Smith: Would the minister make very clear in bus effort to make sure that this not be interpreted as some attempt to force people into district health councils, that where such bodies exist that can undertake needs studies, such as groups of hospitals voluntarily coming together or district psychiatric services groups, or for that matter municipal or regional governments without health councils -- where those bodies wish to use funds for such research into future needs, that they will have equal access to those lottery funds and not be restricted from it unless they happen to have the type of regional health council that the minister would happen to prefer.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The hon. member in his usual inimitable fashion has a way of twisting the truth around.

Mr. O’Neil: You are not giving a straight answer.

An hon. member: That’s not parliamentary language.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege, I wish to raise this matter in two ways. One is that his comment was derogatory to me in terms of saying I am usually twisting truth around. There is no evidence of this at all.


The second point is that I myself -- prior to being raised to such a lofty level to deal with people such as those opposite -- used to have a certain professional capacity in which we did a number of community-based studies of communities, and did so without a health council. I would like, therefore, a clear statement from the minister that it will not lust be regional health councils that will be entitled to those funds to do needs studies in their areas.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What is your matter of privilege?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is a little sensitive, I don’t know, perhaps due to past events, to my earlier comment, then I’m sincerely sorry for that. I was very careful in the way I put it. But obviously I’ve touched a nerve somewhere.

Mr. Roy: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: He hasn’t said that. He hasn’t said that.

Mr. Lewis: What is the meaning of twisted truth?

Mr. Speaker: There is quite a difference in a statement like that and accusing someone of telling a falsehood.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this particular allocation, if previous experience is anything to go by, I’m sure that even from the district health councils the requests will probably exceed the available funds.

Mr. Foulds: That is the important point, isn’t it?

Mr. S. Smith: Just say that any community can get needs studies done.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Why don’t you just button your lip and let somebody finish an answer?

Mr. S. Smith: Make a straight statement.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the member will be quiet, I will be glad to finish my answer. I’m trying to make it very clear that in no way am I trying to force any part of the province into adopting a district health council where the people don’t want it. I offer up the example in Perth and Huron counties where the steering committee by a vote of eight to seven said that it did not want a district health council at this time. My response to that was, “Fine. Maybe you, the people in that area, will look at it again in a few years’ time, but I’m not going to force it on you.”

My point earlier, which I think may have been missed, was that district health councils afford the opportunity for all aspects of health care to be considered in one forum, rather than different aspects of health care in isolation.

Mr. O’Neil: You are blackmailing us.

Mr. Conway: A teen-aged Darcy McKeough.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Absolute, unmitigated nonsense. If I am teenage, you are hardly past the fetus stage.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are just jealous because youth is passing you by.

Mr. Lewis: Personally, I think you are both pre-pubescent.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Talking about ages, maybe somebody would try to act his around here.


Mr. Mackenzie: To the Minister of Labour:

In view of the disturbing and tragic sequence of events in the case histories of the workers in the greater Red Lake area, which have been turned over to the minister, which indicate examinations which revealed nothing, yet one year later a worker is in the hospital having a lung removed, can the minister indicate if she has investigated the consistency and quality of the examinations and the various testing equipment being used in that district?

Hon. B. Stephenson: At the request of the union in that area, and much before that as well, we have been following this situation. There is an examination of the medical records of various individuals who have been made known to us. In addition to that we have been looking at all of the records that we’ve had of testing done in the area, in many specific work areas, in order to put all of the information together, so that we may have a meeting with the union and with the companies involved to provide all of the information to them and try to find solutions to the problems of health and safety in that area.

I have to tell you that we have been unable to contact the district director of the union for the past seven days in order to try to arrange the meeting. In his absence we have arranged alternative meetings which we hope will be satisfactory to him.

I gather that Mr. Cooke at this present time is in Russia. I didn’t know he was there and was unable to make contact with him. However, we are in the process of attempting to arrange that meeting either at the end of this week or the beginning of next week. I had hoped that it was going to be the beginning of this week but because of his absence we have not managed to do so at this time. That information will be placed clearly before the employees, the union and the employers, and we will have a discussion about finding solutions.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Could the minister refer to the initial part of the question from the member for Hamilton East about the testing that is available, because surely the case studies that she has been able to look at so far indicate a grave lack of diagnosis? After being steadily tested, apparently for a number of years, the worker is suddenly in hospital to have a lung removed after being given a clean bill of health a year previously.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would have to remind the hon. member that it is not unusual.

Human beings do not necessarily all react in the same way, and it is not unusual to find the development of a very serious illness within a relatively short period of time from a diagnosis of a reasonably clean bill of health. He and I have had friends or acquaintances who have had all the tests available for cardiac disease and they’ve proven to be perfectly fine, but then they’ve died of a coronary the next day. Unfortunately, medical science is not infallible and human beings are not machines that can be tested in exactly the same way constantly.

However, this is being investigated and as a result of the investigation the information will be placed before the group. I am happy to tell you that the meeting has been finalized. It will be Tuesday morning of next week at 10 o’clock.

Mr. Lewis: In Moscow. In Red Square.


Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Education. With the reference to remarks the minister made this past summer with respect to the enrolment in teachers’ colleges, I wonder if he could help me reconcile these figures. In 1973, the student enrolment of the province was 1,361,000; in 1974, it was 1,340,000 -- that’s a drop of 20,000 -- and in 1975, it was 1,323,000 -- that’s a drop of almost another 20,000. In other words, in three successive years we see a drop in enrolment, and the minister’s own reports show that that drop in enrolment began in 1971 and continues to the present day. That’s one set of figures.

Mr. Speaker: This is not a question.

Mr. Sweeney: Yes, this is a question. I want a reconciliation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to hear a question.

Mr. Sweeney: Will the minister reconcile these figures? In 1973, enrolment at teachers’ colleges was 1,780; in 1974, 2,229, an increase of 500 and in 1975, an increase to 3,300. How is it possible that the same time the enrolment of students --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This question should be directed to the order paper. Put it on the order paper.

Oral questions?


Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs: Could the minister indicate to the House the status of his ministry’s and the other ministries’ studies of the Hornepayne Town Centre and the government’s participation in that development? Could he also report what the government’s participation might be, and has a final decision been made?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as you know, my ministry has been actively involved in that particular development with the CNR and with Hallmark Hotels Ltd. As recently as last week, we advanced a small amount of money to the Hallmark Hotels people to take the next step, which is preparing the design plan on which tenders could be called. As the hon. member is aware, working drawings will not be prepared because of the time factor and the desire to get on with that project if it is approved in total. We felt that we had to take the next step in order to get some hard figures to deal with. We hope to have those figures in our hands early in 1978. On the basis of those figures, we’ll be making a firm decision, positive or negative.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Could the minister indicate whether that means that once the design drawings are prepared the government is prepared to commit itself now to participation and tendering will then take place early in the summer or late spring next year?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think the principle is there and that the government has shown its interest to this point in time. There’s no question about that; we’ve put up our share. In fact, the first portion was shared on a three-part basis and the next phase was shared on an equal basis with CNR. That’s a sign of good faith but we can’t really commit ourselves on the entire project until we get some hard figures and some firm data to deal with.


Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of the provincial Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that the city of Windsor has been deprived of about $20 million in grants since the year 1973? What solution or what relief is he prepared to give to the city of Windsor. in the light of this unfairness, which he has admitted in a letter of August 8?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This is a matter which is under consideration.

Mr. B. Newman: Will the minister elaborate a little further on what type of consideration? Is the minister going to give an unconditional grant to the municipality?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, that is not part of the consideration. I have met with the mayor of Windsor on three different occasions and with his officials and we are reaching, I think, some agreement on facts. Whether solutions will he found, I simply don’t know.

Mr. Warner: You should consider resigning.


Mr. Martel: Has the Premier decided to order the chairman of the Commercial Registration Appeals Tribunal to reinstitute the inquiry into the actions of one Ross Shouldice, now that Mr. Shouldice is involved in selling real estate or handling real estate, without a licence I presume, in the Sudbury area under the name of Berosh Holdings and advertising his services in the local media?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I recall receiving a letter from the hon. member where he raised this question with me. He enclosed an ad. I think that is my recollection of his correspondence, which I always read very carefully. I noted that he signed it but didn’t add any PS though.

Mr. Martel: No, nor any BS either.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That was all above the signature.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to add that it wasn’t written by hand, thank heaven, or I might not have been able to read it. I have asked for a report on it and as soon as I have that report I will get the information to the hon. member.


Mr. Stong: I have a question for the Attorney General. Is the Attorney General responsible for the priority, and which priority would allow $40,444 to be spent on art objects for the courthouse in Barrie, especially in view of the long list of cases that are unheard of -- unable to be heard and unheard of -- particularly when $40,000 is more than ample to pay the salary of a judge and provide new court space, particularly in Toronto and Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have no knowledge of any such expenditure and it would not come within my ministry. It perhaps would be a matter that might be directed to the Minister of Government Services.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I would like that question redirected to the Minister of Government Services. I also note that the Ministry of the Attorney General has its stamp on each item in each courthouse as well.

Mr. Speaker: You may redirect.

Mr. Stong: I would like to redirect this question to the Minister of Government Services. Is he responsible for setting the priority which would allow $40,000 to be spent on the Barrie courthouse on art objects when there is such a backlog of cases in Toronto and Hamilton and Ottawa, and which amount would be more than ample to pay the salary of a judge and appoint new court space?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I could have the question referred back to the Attorney General. The bulk of the question revolves around what is better -- art or a judge?


Mr. Speaker: Can we have some order, please? The hon. Minister of Government Services has the floor.

Hon. Mr. McCague: To answer the half of the hon. member’s question that would come under Ministry of Government Services policy, when a courthouse is established, it is the policy to spend about half of one per cent of the cost of the building on art, and that normally is local art.

Mr. Stong: Is the Minister of Government Services responsible for setting that priority?


Mr. Stong: With 3,000 cases in the backlog, we’ve got $40,000 worth of art. People waiting in jail even.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This party has never been against the artists. Are you against Ontario artists?

Mr. Stong: People sitting in jail for eight months and we can go to look at pictures.


Hon. Mr. McCague: As to whether or not it’s policy, I’m not sure. I think that as well as the solicitors which the hon. member referred to in the first part of the question, the artists have to live also and it would be a sad state if we didn’t have them.

Mr. Lewis: Good for you. You are not a Philistine like all the rest of them.


Mr. Swart: My question is to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, if I could have the Premier’s attention.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You have it -- my undivided attention.

Mr. Swart: Is the Premier as indifferent to the high coffee prices in Ontario as his Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations? I hope the Premier is not, but if he is not, would he --


Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Swart: -- instruct that minister --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Swart: -- to go back and do a thorough inquiry into coffee pricing --

Mr. Eaton: Quit using the imported stuff and start using mill.

Mr. Swart: -- something more than just asking the coffee companies for their explanation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Welland-Thorold really answered the question himself when he recognized that I certainly wouldn’t be indifferent to any situation. I wouldn’t be indifferent to the hon. member, although the temptation is great on occasion.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He was indifferent to us yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He certainly was, I think, very indifferent yesterday.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Forced the vote and then wasn’t here. Shameful.

Mr. Ruston: That’s right. He was calling the radio station back home.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I certainly am not indifferent if that helps the hon. member. I would say though, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, that probably a lot of us would be healthier if we were to substitute a portion of the coffee we drink with milk, which would also assist the dairy industry, and be healthier in the process. I’m not advocating that to the hon. member, but that is an alternative that is available.

Mr. Swart: Would I be right in assuming from the Premier’s reply that he’s not asking the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to make any further investigation and, although far be it from me to make the controversy in your cabinet any worse, but because the Minister of Correctional Services is quoted as saying --

Hon. B. Stephenson: You don’t have to buy it.

Mr. Swart: -- with regard to coffee prices, “When I say ripoff I know what ripoff means,” would the Premier direct him, by special assignment, to make an inquiry of his own?

Mr. Breithaupt: That is since he got into the cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I certainly don’t want the hon. member to really feel that there are ever any differences of opinion in the executive council of this province.

Mr. Wildman: Tell us about the drinking age.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the hon. member wants to raise the question of the drinking age I think it would be more appropriate tomorrow afternoon. If the hon. member for Renfrew North is suggesting that we substitute alcohol for coffee, that I don’t recommend. The Treasurer reminds me that there are grapes in the Peninsula. That’s something else.

Mr. Conway: And baloney in Brampton.

Mr. Ruston: And a lot of corn in Chatham too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There’s corn too.

I have not directed the minister. I find that the ministers of the Crown in this province really demonstrate great initiative. They have the capacity to react to these matters and I have complete confidence in the minister of that ministry in dealing with these issues in a way that will be, I think, ultimately acceptable to the hon. member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Deans: This is very boring.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.



Mr. Havrot from the standing resources development committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March

31, 1978:

Ministry of Industry and Tourism:

Ministry administration program $3,230,006

Policy and priorities program 2,017,000

Industry and trade development program 9,682,000

Tourism development program 10,556,000

Small business development program 4,047,000

Ontario Place Corporation program 2,941,000

Industrial incentives and development program 25,967,000


Mr. Philip from the standing administration of justice committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr1, An Act respecting the Township of Tay;

Bill Pr19, An Act respecting Circle R Boys Ranch;

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting Fuller-Austin of Canada Limited;

Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the Borough of Etobicoke;

Bill Pr23, An Act respecting Matol Holdings Limited;

Bill Pr24, An Act respecting Niagara Institute for International Studies;

Bill Pr31, Au Act respecting Garnet Holdings Limited;

Bill Pr32, An Act respecting Stanley Starr Limited;

Bill Pr33, An Act respecting Kedna Enterprises Limited.


Mr. Speaker: I understand that we have nine private bills to be introduced for first reading, and in order that as much time as possible may be devoted to the important business this afternoon, would it be agreeable to the House for the mover of the bills to send the bills directly to the table and they will be deemed to have been introduced and read for the first time? Is that agreeable?


The following bills received first reading:

Pr2, An Act respecting the Township of Dover.

Pr4, An Act respecting the County of Peterborough.

Pr5, An Act respecting the Village of Port McNicoll.

Pr9, An Act respecting the City of Sault Ste. Marie.

Pr12, An Act respecting certain lands in the Township of Casgrain.

Pr14, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Pr29, An Act respecting the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

Pr35, An Act respecting Shore and Horwitz Construction Company Limited.



Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, before calling the motion, I would like to indicate on behalf of the House leaders how we would propose that the members agree to share time on the debate on the motion in the name of the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa).

We would ask that it be agreed that the time between the calling of the order and 5.50 p.m. be shared equally by the parties, that is one third each. We leave it to each party whip to arrange his speakers in such a way that none of them is deprived of reasonable time, but that the last of those speakers for each party not go beyond the time limit for his party. We would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you put the proposal to the House for consent; and if agreed that you name the minute at which the debate starts, and as well that you terminate the speech of a member whose party’s time has elapsed.

Mr. Speaker: As you know, there is nothing to be guided by in the standing orders with regard to the time allocation for emergency debate, but it seems to have universal approval that the time be allocated one-third for each party. If that is the wish of the House, we will attempt at the table here to indicate when the time of each party has expired, in co-operation with the whips, if that is agreeable to all parties.

Mr. Germa moved private member’s motion No. 11:

Resolution: That the government of Ontario has had before it numerous reports with recommendations that deal with the orderly planning of resource industries and resource industry communities in northern Ontario, and had been unable or unwilling to develop a viable strategy based on these recommendations; and as the lack of such a strategy has been primarily responsible for the current economic problems in the Sudbury basin; and as more than two weeks have now passed since the announced layoffs at Inco and the government has failed to produce any initiatives to deal with the proposed layoff of 2,800 persons and the adverse effect this will have, not only on the economy of Sudbury but on employment in other service and consumer areas; therefore, this government does not enjoy the confidence of the House.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, the motion which I have placed on the order paper indicates that this government does not enjoy the confidence of the House. The reason for entering this motion on the order paper, as recited earlier in the motion, is that the government is unwilling to develop a viable strategy to ensure the viability of northern Ontario, and it has also failed to produce any initiatives to deal with the proposed layoff of 2,800 persons in the Sudbury area.

So we have two considerations, both the long-term failure of the government to deal with the problems of northern Ontario and Sudbury specifically, and the short-term failure of the government to deal with the events which are upon us. It is, then, a natural progression that a motion of no confidence should ensue when I have heard so many voices raised in objection to the actions of Inco in their announced intentions to terminate the employment of so many men, any action which is going to wreak havoc with the economy of an entire area and going to have a severe impact on the entire province.

I recall that the Liberal leader (Mr. S. Smith), when the incident was first before the House, made certain demands upon the government. He said, in a very strident voice, that this government should use its full weight and go to Inco and demand that they cease production of minerals in Indonesia and Guatemala. The government has failed to meet the request of the Leader of the opposition and I would, therefore, assume that he too will express no confidence in the government, because it certainly has not met his demands.

Certain other opinions have been expressed by people across the province of Ontario -- and I could go through a long list of people who have expressed lack of confidence in this government. I go to a person who is known to the government of Ontario -- the mayor of Sudbury, a Mr. Jim Gordon, a former Conservative candidate for office for this government. Mr. Gordon expressed his feelings in a very resounding voice at a rally in Sudbury two weeks ago, on a Sunday afternoon, with 2,000 people in attendance. It was a spontaneous rally in objection to the action of Inco and the lack of action by the government. Mr. Jim Gordon, this very good Tory and a former candidate said: “Nail this government to the wall and shut them down.” I think that this motion addresses itself to the demand of the mayor of Sudbury that this government be nailed to the wall and that they be shut down.


The first area in the motion deals with the unwillingness of the government to develop a strategy. The government did express some interest in strategy in 1970 when it brought in a series of reports across the province on the various areas concerned. Unfortunately, the reports addressed themselves to particular areas; when we put the report together we find we have conflicts in the various reports.

I refer firstly to the report tabled in 1970 by the Treasury on the Toronto-centred region Design for Development. On page 4, one of the stated objectives in the report was, and I quote: “The Toronto-centred region probably can increase its economic role in processing resources which currently come from northern Ontario.”

That statement is certainly not in favour of the stated objectives which we can find in a further report having to do with northeastern Ontario. I think it is this statement in the Toronto-centred region report which has been the problem facing northern Ontario for the past 50 years.

This is in direct conflict with Design for Development, 1970, Northeastern Ontario Region. In that report there were 82 objectives recited, 82 things which should happen in order to ameliorate the lack of development and to enhance the lifestyle of people in northern Ontario. Twenty-three of these objectives were rated as “in the high category.” We cannot go through the 82 objectives, but I have pulled out of them 10 particular areas which the government should have addressed itself to. We will see whether some seven years later the government has addressed itself to reaching any of those objectives.

The first objective was to reduce outward migration. If we look at the population figures of northern Ontario, we find that the increase in growth as compared to the provincial average is not comparable whatsoever. In fact, the growth in northern Ontario is somewhat less than one per cent. It is somewhat in line with the growth in the eastern provinces which have long been recognized as a very depressed area.

The second objective was to increase female employment opportunities in northern Ontario. We know that female participation in the work force in northern Ontario at present is running at 35 per cent, whereas the participation of females across the province is at 44 per cent. The government has not addressed itself to that objective.

“Increased employment opportunities for skilled and educated people”: It just has not addressed itself to that, because it has not corrected the imbalance in northern Ontario which results from our economy being based on resource extraction industries.

“Increased employment opportunities in manufacturing”: I think it is indicative that the government has not moved into that area; otherwise we wouldn’t have this calamity falling upon Sudbury, and Sudbury is the biggest community in northern Ontario. Yet when there is a layoff in the one prime industry, it throws the whole economic balance upside down.

“Increased industrial diversification”: That also speaks to the lack of manufacturing.

“Equalized opportunity for native people”:

We know what has happened to the native people. We could go back to the English and Wabigoon Rivers and see exactly how this government has failed to equalize opportunities for northern people.

“Reduce housing costs for low-income households”: We know very well, without sending another great group of people up there to study it, that housing costs in northern Ontario are just beyond the means of the average individual.

“Reduce traffic fatalities”: The statistics coming out even today indicate that the hazards on the highways in northern Ontario are extreme compared with the rest of the province. Part of that, of course, is because of our geography, part of it is because of our weather, but most of it, I think, is because of lack of proper highway facilities in northern Ontario.

“Reduce occupational accidents and fatalities”: A recent report indicated that the hazards faced by a miner in northern Ontario are seven times as great as the hazards faced by a policeman. Police are recognized as a high-risk profession and yet in mining, which is our main source of employment in the north, miners have to suffer hazards seven times greater than those faced by police.

“Reduce property damage by fire”: My friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) has addressed himself to this problem several times in this session, and the only response from the government is that they would do something about installing smoke detectors in northern Ontario,

I think it’s evident that the government has failed to meet any of the objectives. That is just my opinion. There are other people with opinions in northern Ontario, and I refer now to the response of the Chamber of Commerce to the northeastern Ontario development strategy.

Mr. Martel: Let the government disclaim its friends now.

Mr. Turner: That’s all you’ve got, eh? Pretty shallow.

Mr. Germa: The Sudbury Chamber of Commerce, of course, is not a radical socialist organization, and I just have to put on the record some of the statements by the friends of government and how they feel about this government.

On the very first page they say: “We are disappointed, disillusioned and impatient with the provincial planning program that has accomplished little in a full decade of existence.”

That’s their opening shot. On page 1:

“The northern Ontario regional strategy is devoid of any strategy of development -- physical economic or social. It represents the pinnacle of intellectual bankruptcy of the southern establishment in even analysing the problems of the north, let alone dealing with them effectively.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You fellows wrote it; that’s why.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: They helped to kill Reed.

Mr. Germa: “The only way to deal with northern Ontario regional strategy is to let it terminate as an expensive receptacle of dust until it glides gracefully or otherwise into oblivion.”

Mr. Martel: That’s what they think about the government’s plan.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Remember Reed?

Mr. Germa: “The fundamental problem with northern Ontario regional strategy can be summed up as the troika of noes -- no strategy, no analysis, no programs; therefore, no use.”

Mr. Conway: Governor Bernier is disturbed.

Mr. Germa: I’d like to give you just a couple more quotes, Mr. Speaker. On page 6 of Profile in Failure: “Having failed dismally to deal with the substantive issues, the NORS has resorted to restating motherhood objectives in the hope that somehow innocuous objectives can substitute for n reasoned strategy. The fundamental flaw of NORS is the absence of any strategy of development.”

On page 7: “There is, however, a secret strategy in the NORS. The secret strategy can best be characterized as the colonial exploitation of the natural resources of the north for the benefit of the south. On careful evaluation, one has to conclude that the NORS use the north as a supplier of raw materials for the golden horseshoe and as a market for its manufactured goods and services.

That is the opinion expressed by the friends of government. The government is losing friends at a very rapid rate.

The summary of Profile in Failure is such that they see that there is a lack of strategy owing to the fact that there was not a proper analysis or understanding of the problem in northern Ontario or even an understanding of the opportunities which might be there. When you do not have a strategy, consequently you don’t get a program.

The paramount recommendation in Profile in Failure was that the government must move to diversify the population from the golden horseshoe area.

To speak to the second statement in the motion, the lack of a short-term policy by the government of Ontario, the only thing that we’ve got from this government is the promise that they are going to erect a $10-million office tower in Sudbury.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You don’t want it? You are against it? Are you for it or against it? Don’t ride two horses. The same old hypocrisy that I have heard for 20 years.

Mr. Laughren: Don’t be stupid. That is downright silly; go back to sleep.

Mr. Germa: We appreciate the $10 million which is going to be expended, but I will ask the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) how can $10 million replace the loss of $69 million in wages? The $10 million just doesn’t fit the need when we are losing $69 million in wages.

Mr. Mattel: When $69 million is lost in one year, you dummies offer us an old building.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I hope Hansard has got that -- an old building.

Mr. Germa: I am going to terminate my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by making a demand of the Premier of this province (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Conway: You will make a Teddy Roosevelt out of him.

Mr. Germa: I demand that the Premier of the province take steps to reverse the decision of Inco to lay off 2,800 employees on January 31. He should understand that this is a classic example that even the strongest union on the North American continent is not strong enough to deal with multi-national corporations and that the workers of this province have to have the strength, the backing and the weight of this government to protect them from multi-nationals which have no concern whatsoever except for the bottom line on the balance sheet.

How is the Premier going to do this? I am even going to give the Premier a recipe on how he can lend his weight to have this objective of terminating the layoffs. I would ask the Premier of the province to get himself a hall of steel wool. Then let him get himself a pair of knitting needles and knit himself a barbed-wire overcoat. He will put on this barbed-wire overcoat and go into the board rooms of Inco with his elbows up. He will say to Inco: “Reverse your decision or we will take those leases and grants of ore bodies back into public ownership and renegotiate new leases with you so that it will have the effect of having government input into bow these resources are depleted in the future.”

Mining companies are no longer granted outright lifetime grants for the ore body.

I think these ancient leases and deeds or titles which men has have to be terminated in order that the ore body be exploited properly over the next 50 years. It is not my intention to have 2,800 men standing around doing nothing.

I will suggest how those 2,800 workers can be used. The mines and plants of Inco in Sudbury are in a deplorable state. If we look at the death and accident rate at Inco we see that it has one of the most dismay rates, not only in Ontario but across Canada. I would propose those 2,800 men whom we will not be laying off then be put to work cleaning up the plants and the mines which are presently coming down around them.

I have an estimate that putting proper lighting in the mines in Sudbury is a job worth $40 million. That is how far behind Inco is in maintenance of its plants. We know from tests that 50 per cent of the deaths and injuries in a mine are as a result of lack of lighting.

I just ask you how you and I could function in this room if the lights were out. We would adjourn the debate.

Mr. Conway: Oh, no. This place functions much better in the dark.

Mr. Germa: Yet we are asking people to work in the dark. And that, I think, is the minimum demand I can make on the Premier of the province.

Mr. Martel: Here is the greatest apologist for the mining companies.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion as tabled by the hon. member for Sudbury. I am, however, pleased to discuss the points and the issues raised in that particular resolution.

I would say before I begin my remarks that I suspect this is a grandstand show by the third party. The list of speakers has just been given to me. For your information, Mr. Speaker, the member for Sudbury is the leadoff speaker. The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) is speaking on behalf of the NDP later on. Then the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) will speak and then the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). The windup speaker will be the defunct leader who is there now.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is part of the leadership race we will see in the next two or three or four weeks ahead of us. They are getting their feel, they are putting their feet on the ground and trying to appeal to northern Ontario.

They have caught up with you, fellows. You are wasting your time, they know where you stand.


Mr. Laughren: Go ahead, apologize. Give us the Inco line, Leo.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Many of the issues that were raised in the resolution have already been debated in this House during the emergency debate a few days ago. One thing that became abundantly clear in that debate was the fact that the company’s problem was one of an international nature, one of offshore markets, one of world demand declining considerably.

Mr. Wildman: It is not that we don’t have confidence in Inco, it is you guys.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Just before coming to the House this afternoon I learned from my staff that a mining company in Australia is about to go bankrupt and the French producers in New Caledonia have cut back their nickel production substantially. So we have a situation which we all recognize. Those of us who have the depth to understand the problem of the mining industry in Sudbury, understand that it is one of a world-wide nature.

Mr. Laughren: They really did right for you though, Leo.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think on this point no one in this Legislature should underestimate the concerns of the Ontario government with regard to the hundreds of employees who may be laid off by Inco, both in this province and in the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Germa: Do something then, do something.

Mr. Warner: You have done nothing.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No one should underestimate our concern. We are as concerned and worried about that situation as any party in this Legislature.

Mr. Cassidy: We’d like to see some action.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No one party, no one government, has all the answers to their particular problems.

Mr. Wildman: What about long-term planning?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is no easy solution to that problem. But I think that we can be encouraged, because there are continuing discussions going on between the company and the union; and certainly they are very constructive discussions, very positive ones.

We’re all very pleased as well to hear of the positive and the practical suggestions that have been put forward by the Sudbury committee themselves. Sometimes when I hear members of the third party speak of the Inco decision I have to question if they are fully knowledgeable of what theft union leaders are discussing and putting forward to the company in those discussions. It leaves a question mark in my mind, because I don’t think they are totally informed.

Mr. Wildman: We are not talking about moo, we are talking about the government.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, since the announcement concerning the massive lay.. off s, the government has acted very positively. We have had meetings with union leaders, with municipal leaders in all sections of the province. We have attended joint meetings with the federal government, municipal governments, labour meetings, to explore every possible avenue to deal with this situation.

The Premier recently announced a special cabinet committee to deal with the short-term and the long-term problems facing the Sudbury basin. In addition to that we are also looking at the long-term economic future of mining in this country, and of course our deliberations will have some effect on mining in the country as a whole.

Mr. Wildman: What have you been doing for seven years?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: While these things are being quickly put in place, the government has moved in another direction. As the hon. members have correctly pointed out, we announced a $10 million construction program to complete the provincial building in Sudbury. Certainly this will add, on a short-term basis at least, some needed employment in that area

I realize there are many positive forward steps that should be taken, and they will be taken. But as the hon. member for Sudbury quoted the mayor of Sudbury, Mayor Jim Gordon, I think it’s only right that we put on the record his comments that were quoted in the Sudbury Star on November 4. After the Premier’s announcement that there would be a special cabinet committee established, that there would be a go-ahead on the provincial building, and that there would be special funding to the industrial development study group in Sudbury, this is what Jim Gordon said -- and it was headlined. “Natural and Welcome Move a Symbol of Faith the Province Has Shown in Our Area.”

The reaction of Doug Frith in the same paper: “The project will bolster the region’s economy over the next two years when we need it most. It shows the province has confidence in our area. Important achievements for the Sudbury committee.” Those are the kinds of the positive things that are coming out.

Mr. Martel: A $69-million loss in salaries in one year, and you’re giving us $5 million.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, don’t be swayed by the attitudes and some of the comments that are coming from that group, because they’re not identical to what’s being said back home in a place like Sudbury. They are a very positive, sincere group up there and they want to do something.

Mr. Germa: Nail you to the wall, Jim Gordon said.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would like to review the status of Design for Development. I’m sure many members here will have known that over the past several weeks and several months and several years --

Mr. Martel: Seven.

Hon. Mr. Bender: -- we have been meeting with various groups, dealing with a number of reports and putting together a design strategy for the northeast and the northwest. As you are fully aware, Mr. Speaker, in 1970 the government of Ontario adopted Design for Development: Phase 2 for the northwest and, of course, these recommendations are being implemented right now. In fact, that particular Design for Development is being written at the present time, so that we’re in phase three of Design for Development in the northwest. Of the 70-odd recommendations, actions have been taken on at least 69 of them.

Mr. Foulds: The Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) has announced phase three. Phase three has already been announced. This is phase-out four.

Mr. Conway: They’re going to turn Minaki into --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Regarding the northeast, a number of interim documents are in the final strategy report and, as members of this House will remember, it was tabled in the Legislature in April 1976.

Mr. Cassidy: And promptly forgotten by your government.

Hon. Mr. Bender: Since then it has gone through a number of discussions with public and industry sections all over northeastern Ontario. We have amendments for it, we have amendments in our hands now.

Mr. Foulds: Why did you do all that secretly?

Hon. Mr. Bender: We’re discussing it. We’re looking at it from the government point of view.

Mr. Cassidy: You’re looking uneasy.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: These are being very closely reviewed and, of course, will be included in the final document.

Mr. Foulds: Why did you have that review process in secret?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have not waited for the dotting of the final i’s before taking action on development in the northwest and the northeast.

Mr. Cassidy: You’ve already decided to delay.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, we have taken some positive action on a number of fronts. I’d just like to run over a few of those for you, Mr. Speaker.

An hon. member: It will be a short run.

Hon. Mr. Bender: Transportation is a typical example; we consider this to be a major contributing factor to the economic base and the economic future of all of northern Ontario. Line ministries, of course, are doing their job in providing the necessary facilities and doing the work that will improve transportation corridors throughout the entire north. As an example, Highway 144 linking Sudbury and Timmins is well on its way to completion.

Mr. Martel: Thirty-three years in the making!

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Fine, but it’s done.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: To give another example, there is the highway from White River to Hornepayne. Those are just two examples.

Mr. Germa: How wide is that road?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Right across the north, for those of us who live there, the transportation corridors have improved immensely and they will continue to improve.

Mr Martel: You’re unbelievable.

Mr. Conway: You’re creating certain difficulties for a certain member over there.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As members of this Legislature, another aspect of transportation we can take pride in, of course, is the air transportation program that this government has come forward with and implemented and which is now recognized as one of the finest regional carriers in all of Canada. Through the norOntair service, which many of these members use on a regular basis, we serve 16 communities across northern Ontario. In fact, while in 1971 we carried only 500 passengers, up to September 1977 that figure was over 7,800. We provide a full service of airline flights between a number of local centres, with good connections to regional airlines on the main traffic hubs, In 1978 we will be adding two more centres to the 16 that I have already mentioned -- Geraldton and Terrace Bay.

Mr. Conway: That won’t help Inco, will it?

Mr. Martel: That really does a lot for employment, doesn’t it?

Mr. Lupusella: How many jobs?

Mr. Foulds: Tell us how many permanent jobs?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In the field of transportation, under our airstrip development program we have constructed 12 airstrips in the remote areas of northern Ontario, two are under construction and six more airstrips are being planned’. Nine more have been requested by Treaty No. 9 and they are currently under review.

In the field of municipal airports -- that’s over and above the remote airstrip development program -- 10 airports have been upgraded and two airports are under construction. In the fields of highway transportation and air transportation, things are moving ahead in northern Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: Most of them straight out of the north.

Hon. Mr. Bender: Another area of major concern to all of us in northern Ontario is the regional priority budget. This is a fund that has been given to the Ministry of Northern Affairs --

Mr. Germa: It’s a community tap.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- which is an amount of money over and above the regular normal spending of line ministries. As an example of this particular program, we are assisting with the infrastructure development at Timmins in the form of a $12 million sewer and water project; a project for sewer and water facilities at Walden Industrial Park; the development of an industrial park, $3.5 million --

Mr. Martel: Fifty million dollars in the Oshawa area.

Mr. Cassidy: How much for Highway 401?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: At Thunder Bay alone, there is $28 million for the development of new infrastructure.

Mr. Conway: What kind of a check-mark have you got for Grassy Narrows?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The Kimberly-Clark impact area, taking in Geraldton, Longlac and Nakina, over $12 million is being spent. We haven’t forgotten the smaller communities of the north either, such as Kapuskasing, Cochrane, Parry Sound, Blind River --

Mr. Lewis: What have you done for Blind River?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- Gore Bay, Chapleau and all across the northeast; even in Cobalt where the government responded within a matter of hours to the disaster that occurred there. For once the government was there, on the spot, to make some immediate decisions.

Mr. Martel: For once!

Mr. Samis: That’s in Hansard now.

Mr. Lewis: That’s in Hansard now, you can’t change it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s not that often we have a fire of that magnitude. I have to point out to the hon. members that it was a disaster and I hope that all members of this Legislature applauded the action of the government in that particular case. I’m sure they did.

Mr. S. Smith: If they are going to have a fire they have it just before an election.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In the northwest, action has been taken under the regional priority budget. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition would go up to northern Ontario once in a while he would know what’s going on. There is massive development happening up there. But we don’t see him, he spends all his time in southern Ontario.

Ninety per cent of the land mass is north of the French River. Only 10 per cent of the population lives there but we’re alive and we’re well and we’re growing.

In the northwest, action has been taken at Kenora, Dryden, Ignace, Ear Falls, Red Lake, Sioux Lookout and Schreiber. Since 1974, under the regional priority budget, the government has spent over $90 million in the economic development and the infrastructure planning and development of communities in northwestern and northeastern Ontario.

In addition, the Treasurer stated on May 12 of this year that other funds are being channelled into the northeast. I quote from that statement: “Sudbury now receives annual payments of $7.6 million as part of the government special support grant to northern municipalities.”

He goes on to say: “The NODC, in 1976, loaned some $21 million to the manufacturing and tourist establishments in the northern region.”

Mr. Martel: It is Utopia.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think one of the major steps forward was when he said: “We have created a Ministry of Northern Affairs to improve the co-ordination of our programs and to give the north a bigger voice in government deliberation.” That was a very important step.

Mr. Foulds: And what have you done on this issue? Nothing, you have done absolutely nothing; you haven’t taken any initiative.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In the field of mining tax, a group over there advocated the nationalization of our resources. You know what that would have done. I ask you, what would that have done to the world-market situation?

Mr. Foulds: It would have put you out of a job.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Would that have increased our sales to the United States and the European common market?

Mr. Laughren: Is that a question he is asking, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, it’s not. Nor is it a statement.

Mr. Germa: You’ve spent $10 million in the last 10 years.

Mr. Speaker; Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: On the process of mining tax, I want to quote from the Treasurer’s statement when he said:

We built in the incentive to further process raw materials and the incentive provided was the highest in Canada, even higher than in southern Ontario. The economic benefits are there to see. The record is as clear as crystal. Texasgulf has announced a $300 million capital expenditure program in which it gives full credit to the mining tax incentive as an important part of that decision. Inco was greatly influenced by the new tax system in its decision to construct a new coinage mill in Sudbury rather than in the United States.”

Mr. Martel: Then they lost 2,800 people.

Mr. Germa: Yes, and what about Falconbridge?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: And listen to what Grubb, the former chairman of Inco, said:

Mr. Lewis: Grubb, they booted him out.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: “Recent technical innovation, along with tax incentives provided by the Ontario government to encourage further processing of metals in northern Ontario, now make this type and scale of project feasible. These two decisions alone will produce 2,225 new jobs and also, of course, a new mining tax system because it's practical and realistic.’

Mr. Lewis: Where are they?

Mr. Germa: They lost 4,300 jobs.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I realize I may be running out of time, but I just want to close on a personal note. It’s something that’s very close and dear to me, as one who has lived and worked for the north all of my life.

Mr. Lewis: Go on, Leo. Minaki Lodge -- do you want to talk about that?

Hon. MT. Bernier: Yes, and I’ll touch on Minaki Lodge before I’m finished.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I’m sure you will.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’ve worked on five or six elections. I’ve listened to the people of the north and know what the people of the north really want. But I get sick and tired, I get disgusted; I really get upset with the hypocritical approach of the third party in this House and what they’re trying to do to those of us who live in northern Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: We are fed up with your lack of action.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We saw what happened in the last election; we saw as northerners. We flushed them I out, don’t worry. We know that we were being used to garner votes in southern Ontario. We know that Minaki Lodge was used for a purpose.

Mr. Foulds: How many votes did you get in the northern part of your riding?


Hon. Mr. Bernier: We know that Reed Paper was used for that purpose. We know what you did to Matachewan; all those jobs, all those jobs. They are yours. You carry that load to the people of the province of Ontario, carry that message across northern Ontario and see what they do to you. You lost three seats on June 9, and if you carry on that same approach you will be wiped out in the north. I guarantee that if you keep that same approach.

Mr. Lewis: There has never been so much claptrap in this House as in the last five minutes. You are so riddled with guilt you don’t know how to handle it, Leo.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I represent an area that’s very dependent on the mining industry, and I refer to the Red Lake-Balmertown-Cochenour area. Through the years my father worked in the Howey gold mine. He knows what it’s like.

Mr. Germa: Where did you work?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You are not the only people who worked in the gold mines. He worked there back in the 1930s. He knows what it’s like. That mine is closed today, as is MacKenzie Island as is Cochenour Willans, as is Madsen, as is Hasaga, as is Starratt Olsen. They are all closed.

Mr. Cassidy: That is what we are saying.

Mr. Martel: I thought we were losing 2,800 jobs.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That community, Red Lake, was fighting for an economic base, for an existence to keep the people there and working.

Mr. Cassidy: So what are you putting up as alternatives? There are no alternatives.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: And what did the NDP do when they had an opportunity to use the normal resources of this province, of their area? What did you people do? Where did you stand? Where did the member for Fort William stand?

Mr. Foulds: You wanted to mine that timber the very same way that you mined out those gold mines. What did you leave there?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member for Lake Nipigon had the guts to stand up and support the rest of this party here.

Mr. Foulds: You didn’t have the guts to come to Red Lake when I was there and you were invited two weeks ahead of time. You didn’t have the guts to come to Red Lake and face me on a platform.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He was there. The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) knows. He reads the north. He knows where he stands. They want jobs. They want economic development. They also want environmental protection, and we built that into the memorandum of understanding with the Reed Paper company.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, sure.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It was there. It was there, Mr. Speaker. It was there.

Mr. Cassidy: Why did you set up the commission then?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The people of Red Lake will never forget what that particular party did to their opportunity to have a long-term viable economic base. They will never forget.

Mr. Lewis: One day you will lose and it will be a great thing for Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The same thing can be said for the areas of Geraldton and Kirkland Lake. They ride two horses --

Mr. Lewis: You are a disgrace to politics, Leo Bernier; the only member of the cabinet who is a disgrace.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that day is going to come to an end. You can’t ride both horses.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I ask them to join the bandwagon, get on the team that will develop northern Ontario and vote against this particular resolution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Germa: Everybody is leaving.

Mr. Foulds: Mine out the timber like you have mined out the ore.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with today is surely first and foremost a human problem. We have to deal with the fact, sometimes forgotten I guess in the heat of partisan politics, that a great many young people mostly, because they are people with less seniority, a great many people who have just started young families, who have perhaps in many instances just put a down payment on a home which will now be virtually impossible to sell, a great many of these people are now wondering what our economy, what our system, what our province, what our way of life means if they have to somehow pick up and lose whatever little they have put into their homes and so on.

They now have to try to find another way of earning their living and supporting their wives and children. We are very deeply concerned about the fact that these people seem to be the forgotten people. There was a great flurry about them, there was a great number of headlines about these 2,800 people, and somehow when the numbers get large enough sometimes the human story is forgotten, but I am very concerned about these people.

It’s obvious to me from the examination of what happened in the world nickel market that some jobs are likely to be lost. It is not obvious to me that all 2,800 have to be lost. In fact, it’s not obvious to me at all that the pattern of investment of Inco has been in the best interests of Ontario. I feel that this government has in some ways very seriously been negligent of its duty in keeping the multi-national corporations, be they allegedly Canadian multi-national or foreign multi-national, it seems to me it has been very negligent in its duty to keep these multi-national corporations under some form of proper relationship to the people of Ontario. I would have to say, just perhaps as an aside to my comment in the House the other day, that some of our branch plants in this country which don’t export in competition with their multi-national parent in other countries are really not doing a great service here and are doing us a great disservice in many ways, as is shown in the case of Anaconda Brass and Copper.

Mr. Cassidy: We can’t stand that hypocrisy coming out again.

It is a pity that this government seems not to understand that. By continuing to foster multi-national operations here, branch plants, without insisting on certain guarantees that the interests of Ontario are put before the interests of international shareholders, in that way it seems to me the government has been very negligent in its duties.

I also feel it is quite unacceptable that the government has been caught by surprise in this matter. Everyone who follows the financial pages knows that the nickel industry was in trouble. Everyone knows after the Port Colborne layoffs that there were serious problems in the international metal markets related to nickel. All the government has to do is read the financial pages to find it out, let alone bother to call the company.

I met with the company some weeks before the layoff and they certainly didn’t tell me about the layoff, but I sensed there were problems in the field. I met with the unions some weeks before the layoff and they knew there was something up, they knew something was coming. I think it is unacceptable that this government was caught by surprise.

There is a more serious matter and it is a matter which, frankly, is referred to in the motion put forward by the hon. member for Sudbury. It is the fact that during the 34 years of stewardship that the resource sector has been under this Tory government, there has been opportunity after opportunity wasted and squandered when we might have been developing a resource strategy and when we might have been working on some means of diversifying wherever possible. It is .not always possible in every town and village, but wherever possible we should have been working on diversifying the economies of our resource towns.

I, for one, am somewhat new to politics perhaps, but I am very saddened at the fact that those who have been in charge of our lives and governments at every level have failed to develop a proper resource strategy, a proper economic strategy for that matter, an industrial strategy for Ontario and for Canada. We have drifted and we continue to drift.

I am profoundly distressed. I don’t know how one can speak to some of these workers who have lost their jobs in Port Colborne and Sudbury and be able to explain to them how this country and this province can be proceeding, seemingly so comfortable, and seemingly so carefree without a proper strategy to cope with the futures of these young people, and for that matter their children to follow.

I’m concerned that this government has not shown much analysis in terms of the world market. They seem to have been caught, as I say, by surprise. Nor have they been willing to stand up to Inco and insist that if there is bad news as a consequence of overexpansion and as a consequence of an unanticipated slowdown in the world’s capital goods requirement which has hurt the nickel industry, that this bad news be spread about all of Inco’s operations, especially considering the moral obligation that is owed to the Sudbury basin, since the money of the company has been made here with the resources in the Sudbury basin in Ontario and yet it has been transferred in gigantic quantities to other parts of the world for investment elsewhere. Why the bad news cannot be shared with those parts of the world is something which I believe is a disgrace to Ontario and also to the multi-national corporation involved, and I have told them so personally, as you well know, Mr. Speaker.

I tell you, furthermore, that there are a number of proposals the union has made which are excellent proposals and which could at least mitigate to some extent the blow which has fallen upon these people and upon the community of Sudbury. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that in Forbes Magazine, a financial magazine, in the issue of October 1, there is a very intelligent and penetrating analysis of the Inco company. It indicates there that Sudbury can produce nickel competitively and could beat the price of the Indonesian and Guatemalan operations of Inco, but it is in Inco’s interest not to let Sudbury compete.

We want Sudbury to be permitted to compete and we insist that those who represent Sudbury’s interests permit Sudbury to compete in the world markets. If, in fact, Indonesia and Guatemala could produce it more cheaply, then I might begin to understand the situation with Inco, because after all if not Inco, it would be the Swiss or the Germans or some other group that would develop those resources and sell in competition with Sudbury.

But Sudbury can compete. My only concern is that Inco isn’t letting Sudbury compete. I believe we have to have a government that is strong enough to stand up to the company in this regard. We are interested in helping as many people as we possibly can. We are interested in facing the realities of the international market for nickel, but in a manner to mitigate the effects wherever possible and reducing the jobs lost wherever it is possible to do so.

We want to have a strategy in the resource sector, and that is why we have suggested that there be a committee of the Legislature with all-encompassing terms of reference, to permit not only the inquiry into the activities of certain of the senior officials from Inco, who most certainly should be called before the bar of this House, but also the calling forward of other persons who might contribute in a useful and constructive manner, such as the labour union.

I would like to hear from the labour union, I would like to have them tell the story here, to find out just how duplicitous the company might have been in its relationships with the union in terms of telling them so little, or leading them to believe that the layoffs were not, in fact, imminent.

I’d like to know from international experts whether Inco will be telling the whole truth when the officers come in here to tell us about the unexpected difficulties in the international market. I would like some corroboration from other people, not just from the senior officials of Inco.

Mr. Lewis: You have largely accepted it.

Mr. S. Smith: I’d like to hear from other people in the city of Sudbury and in the area who could make some intelligent suggestions -- which they already have in some ways -- and I would like them to have a chance to expand on them in front of all the parties of this House.

Mr. Cassidy: They suggested that we nail the government to the wall, are you ready to do that?

Mr. S. Smith: That’s why we have suggested widely expanded, broad terms of reference for the committee. We have also suggested that once the committee is finished, in one month, with a report on the specific situation, it should then go on to become a select committee to inquire into the state of the resource sector and to come up with a strategy.

That is constructive, in my opinion. There may be those who disagree with the idea, but I think it is constructive. We put forward these suggestions with every good intention to have the matter dealt with by all parties in this House in as expeditious a way as possible.

Now we come to the actual suggestions made by the members on my left in the New Democratic Party. Some of their suggestions are excellent. The idea that more attention could be paid to safety and some jobs could he saved by having more work done in that area is an excellent suggestion. I am happy to applaud the suggestion and share it with the member.

However, I must say to you that the suggestion that nationalizing Inco would, in fact, solve the problems of these 2,800 layoffs, or in some way improve the international nickel market, is a suggestion that I find preposterous in the extreme.

Mr. Foulds: It is not in the motion, speak to the motion.

Mr. S. Smith: I feel, in fact, that the point of view that has been expressed by the mover of this motion -- I notice he left it out of the motion, but he has certainly expressed it on many other occasions, supported by many other members of his party --

Mr. Foulds: He didn’t express it in this today.

Mr. S. Smith: -- the idea that nationalization would in some way solve this problem is a complete mystery to me. It would cost a lot of money to do that I do not believe this is an intelligent time to put the people of Canada into the nickel business in this manner.

Mr. Cassidy: You are a hypocrite and you are trying to justify not supporting the motion.

Mr. Bounsall: The Leader of the Opposition can’t vote against the motion on that basis.

Mr. S. Smith: I think that is a suggestion that is utterly and completely preposterous.

Mr. Martel: Speak to the motion.

Mr. S. Smith: But now, having decided not to proceed with nationalization at this time, having decided somehow or other to paper over the cracks in that party by deciding to downplay and soft pedal the nationalization aspect now, they have come up with a second solution to the problems of the 2,800 souls who are facing layoff in Sudbury, and that is that we should have an election.

Now how in the name of goodness can we possibly save the jobs of those people by having an election? Are we going to use them as poll clerks throughout the province of Ontario?

Mr. Breaugh: Where is your principle?

Mr. Foulds: The Lieutenant Governor might ask you.

Mr. S. Smith: This has to be, as far as I am concerned, one of the most politically opportunistic motions ever to come in front of this House. I can certainly respect the desire of the member for Sudbury to be re-elected in his seat. I can understand that he is aiming at that.


There may be some poor souls in Sudbury who actually believe any guy who stands up in the House and is willing to have an election for them must be a super guy. But

I’ll tell you this, nobody, even in the midst of the depths of depression and sadness in Sudbury would be so stupid as to believe an election is a solution to their problems at this time.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We agree.

Mr. Germa: The mayor was one, the mayor said it: “Nail them to the wall.”

Mr. S. Smith: Only the people in the NDP could be as irresponsible, as shallow and as opportunistic as to play on the sadness and the difficulty and the despair in that area to bring in this posturing motion, this motion which is fundamentally designed for the folks at home to show what brave fellows exist in the NDP. Everyone knows neither nationalization nor elections will sell one ounce of Canadian nickel overseas.

Mr. Samis: Remember December 1975.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. S. Smith: And so therefore I put to you, Mr. Speaker, that what we need in this House is a proper committee representing all parties to form a strategy in our resource sector, to look at all aspects of the Inco situation, to save whatever jobs are possible, to stand up to Inco and insist Ontario he put first on their list of priorities. We’ve got to ram down the throat of this government a proper attitude towards the resource sector in this province.

Mr. Cassidy: It will die on pieces of paper.

Mr Germa: Can I have some studies?

Mr. Laughren: What a joke.

Mr. S. Smith: But we don’t need an election. The members to my left know we don’t need an election and this whole bill, this entire afternoon’s debate, is designed to serve their narrow political, opportunistic purposes and should be shown up as a shallow exercise they have inflicted upon us. Thank you very much.

Mr. Germa Same old gang; what nonsense. Hon. Mr. Bernier: First candidate. Jim, why aren’t you in this?

Mr. Breaugh: I rise to speak in support of this motion and I think it important that people across the province of Ontario understand the impact of the issue before this particular House on this afternoon; understand that unlike what the minister proposes to put in front of us this is not a matter of geography, this is not a matter of the north versus the south.

This is a matter of economics. It is a matter of the future of the province of Ontario, of how we utilize the resources that arc here, of what impact we might have on our own economy. It is also, as the member for Sudbury so eloquently put it just a week ago, a matter of the human investment, of people who have spent their lives working in a particular community, making that kind of human and very personal investment in an industrial situation only to have it thrown out the window.

Mr. Havrot: Sudbury isn’t the only mining town in the country.

Mr. Breaugh: I think we should look at a couple of other interesting things that have evolved from the discussions around this very issue. For some time now, we’ve been listening to a great deal of chatter about the productivity of the Canadian worker, and in particular, the difficulty of getting the kind of productivity from Ontario workers which would allow them to compete on an international market.

All of a sudden all that is not true; all of a sudden the Premier of the province, as an example, is adamant the productivity of the workers in the Inco plant is not in question at all, that in fact they can compete on a world market and the problem is simply that the world market is having a little difficulty. So all that we listened to for so long about Canadian workers, about Ontario workers in particular not being able to compete, is now shelved.

Let’s look at this very question which has been raised several times; the question of whether the province of Ontario ought to nationalize International Nickel, of whether the province of Ontario ought to have, in public ownership, that entire resource sector or parts thereof. Let’s realize, too, the province of Ontario has a pretty substantial financial investment in that one plant.

Mr. Conway: Now tread very easily, those delegates will be listening.

Mr. Breaugh: In preparing some information on this, I found it very interesting to understand the people of Canada have invested substantial amounts of money. In terms of federal subsidies, there are tax credits involved totalling some $73.85 million; provincial subsidies in sales tax exemptions of $24.95 million; deferred federal and provincial taxes of $378 million; an export development corporation loan of some $77 million. That’s a pretty healthy chunk of the Canadian tax dollar going into one corporate entity in one particular place. Those of you who are making the argument you cannot afford to nationalize Inco might ask the logical question, “What did we get in return for all that financial investment?”

Certainly we did not get much equity in terms of shares of that particular plant operation; nor will we, I suspect, get much assistance from the corporation in terms of the kinds of social costs that we, the people, will pay for. It is not just the $69 million that we lose in salaries, but the impact on that community, the problems that we will pick up in social assistance programs, the difficulties that we will face on the streets of those communities, and that we, the people will have to pay for thereafter. I wonder what sort of equity that is. I wonder what businessman in his right mind would stand up and justify that kind of investment, with absolutely no control.

If a case to nationalize Inco ever was to be made, it has been made by the company itself.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Are you for nationalization? Let’s flush out the leaders.

Mr. Conway: What’s your position on it, Mike?

Mr. Breaugh: There has never been a situation of a more clearly defined rip-off of the Canadian public in terms of its tax dollar investment, and even in terms of kind consideration by a corporation for its workers or the economy of the province than we are seeing in this particular instance. The thing that disturbs me most of all is that almost all of this is a clear act of will.

I want to read, very quickly Mr. Speaker, from three examples that bring to mind a number of issues. These are exemptions under the mining tax, all dealing with the same corporation, all dealing with a number of items that we have discussed in this House many times.

International Nickel has been given an exemption to the mining tax for an unspecified quantity of materials from the dates of January 1, 1975 to January 31, 1978, to export iron oxide pellets to Hanna Mining Company in the United States; to export nickel oxide and cobalt oxide to Inco in Wales; and oddly enough refined nickel sulfide to the Tokyo Nickel Company in Japan. It is an act of will, a violation of a piece of legislation that this House passed, supposedly a good decision on the part of the government which would do good things. It would be difficult to identify those good things that were supposed to have happened.

The company supposedly is having some difficulty with its Sudbury operation, and yet it seems to have a good deal of capital still available to invest in other hinds of operations, perhaps in other places in the province of Ontario but certainly not in the Sudbury basin.

Whether you make the case to nationalize Inco, or whether you say that for all of that massive public investment you surely should have received some measure of control --

Mr. S. Smith: Which side are you on?

Mr. Breaugh: -- or whether you are prepared to say, as perhaps the Liberal government might say, that at least you should Influence the role of that particular corporation and its function in the Sudbury basin, one of the oddest things is that a federal government, a federal Liberal government in particular, which has stockpiled everything from eggs to wheat, all of a sudden says that you cannot stockpile something like nickel.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Are you for nationalization? Let’s hear it.

Mr. Breaugh: Let me put to you very briefly the kind of sweet reason, in the midst of all this madness, that comes from the workers themselves who are asking for simple things like no more overtime, a work-to-rule program, improvement of theft pension program, the stopping of contracting out and adjusting the vacation schedule.

Mr. Conway: What is your position?

Mr. Breaugh: In all of this you see a failure on the part of the government of Ontario to implement its own fantasies in terms of a Design for Development for northeastern Ontario; a failure of the province of Ontario to establish in financial terms, a commitment to the development of secondary industry in the north at all. Frankly, in terms of what the member for Sudbury said, and he quoted at some length from this document, “all of what the government has even faintly attempted to do in the north has been, indeed, a profile in failure.” Thank you.

Mr. Pope: May I say at the outset that I am in strong opposition to both the motion and the remarks of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) and of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) who followed him.

Mr. Riddell: Is Bill Ferrier after you?

Mr. Cassidy: You have a nationalized industry in your riding.

Mr. Laughren: I think I am going to be sick.

Mr. Pope: Let me hasten to assure the House that I am not speaking merely as a member of the governing party, I am speaking as a member who represents a northern riding and a member who received over 50 per cent of the vote in my riding in the last election. In my view, Mr. Speaker, the motion of the member for Sudbury is both ill-considered and precipitous.

Mr. Cassidy: Precipitous? After 34 years?

Mr. Pope: It is stated that the government has been unable or unwilling to develop a viable strategy for resource industries and resource industry communities in northern Ontario. This statement is completely without foundation. The government of Ontario has many strategies, which taken together form an impressive program for development in the north.

Mr. Cassidy: And none of them work.

Mr. Martel: What?

Mr. Pope: I am getting to it, just wait. The programs of the government are clear --

Mr. Cassidy: Name one I

Mr. Pope: -- and the overall strategy should be patently obvious to all except those who refuse to recognize it.

Mr. Martel: Does the chamber of commerce support it?

Mr. Pope: In the first place, there is a regional priority program. This program is designed to assist municipalities to provide necessary municipal services. The main beneficiaries have been northern communities and a number of projects are under active consideration. Some examples of projects and funding in the past through DREE-TEIGA agreements cover a number of communities. For instance, Timmins, $10.7 million for sewer and water; Dryden, $2.9 million for sewer and water; Sudbury, $3.1 million for industrial site servicing. Examples of projects under consideration are North Bay, servicing and industrial park; Elliot Lake, servicing for housing. Capital expenditures under the community priority programs have an estimated cost in 1977-78 of $27,599,000.

Mr. Conway: That’s just normal funding. Mr. Pope: The projected cost for 1978-79 is $35,443,000. This will be mainly aimed at municipal servicing and development of industrial sites. The figures included an allocation of $3,250,000 for servicing of Walden industrial park in Sudbury, which should be completed this year.

Under the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, again jointly funded by the federal, provincial and municipal governments -- the town of Iroquois Falls for instance, just in the last month, received an allocation of $680,000 for basic municipal services in the Porquis Junction area.

Mr. Martel: Imagine, in 1977 getting sewer and water in Sudbury. In 1977 you are getting sewer and water in Timmins. Hurray.

Mr. Pope: The second topic I would like to deal with is the Design for Development program. We have passed Phase 1, which was a thorough analysis of northeastern Ontario combined with some elementary suggestions. Phase 2, which was tabled in this House in April of 1976, deals with policy options. In conjunction with the municipal advisory committee under the chairmanship of Mayor Aurele Gervais of Iroquois Falls, a number of public meetings were held and input was received from municipalities and interest groups in the north. At the present time policy decisions and future options are being considered at the cabinet level. In brief, Design for Development is a forthright, public and vital part of the government’s strategy for the north.

Thirdly, there is the important matter of conditional and unconditional grants for northeastern Ontario municipalities. The same unconditional per capita grant rates apply in the north as in the south. However, under the provision of the resource equalization grant, the special northern general support grant and the general support grant that applies to all Ontario municipalities, northern municipalities can receive up to 49 per cent of the general purpose municipal levy in addition to the unconditional per capita grants. There are northern municipalities in which the combination of unconditional grants account for up to 60 per cent of their municipal levy.

Education grants are not only based on equalized assessment but also on a number of weighting factors. Those factors most beneficial to the north are goods and service costs for small schools, small boards and compensatory education for a number of underprivileged pupils. These weighting factors increase grants to the north by about 12 per cent over those for the south. These are over and above the increases due to lower assessments in the north.

Mr. Riddell: Do you not think the government is obligated to spend some money in the north, Alan?

Mr. Pope: In addition, there is the strategy evolved by the Ministry of Natural Resources for the use of Crown lands. By this strategy the government has adopted policies for the disposition and use of these lands. Since lands comprise over 80 per cent of the land in northeastern Ontario this is important, when we consider timber rights, potential mineral development and agricultural use. The government’s policy with regard to Crown land are an important component in the overall strategy in the north.

Mr. Foulds: They are an important part of the sellout, Alan.

Mr. Pope: Then there is the matter of capital hospital grants. Municipalities in the north are required to provide one-sixth of the capital of the hospital construction costs, whereas those in the south provide one-third. This in an obvious recognition of the special problems of the north and a concrete illustration of a definite program.

Mr. Martel: We have no taxpayers.

Mr. Pope: I would now like to move to the question of housing in the north. The government has a definite commitment to help provide affordable housing for citizens in northern Ontario. In my own riding, for example, Timmins, Iroquois Falls and Matheson have received many millions of dollars under a variety of programs ranging from community sponsored housing, urban renewal, Home Ownership Made Easy, RRAP and OHRP.

The Neighbourhood Improvement Program I mentioned earlier is a joint project with the federal government and provides help with basic municipal services. All of these programs are related to a larger plan to provide reasonably priced, serviced accommodation to citizens of the north.

I could read figures on this all afternoon. What is important is that all of these programs, and I’ve mentioned only a few, constitute a clear and definite commitment on the part of the government. To say that they are haphazard or that they are not part of a viable overall strategy is simply irresponsible.


Mr. Conway: The strategy doesn’t exist.

Mr. Pope: Let me now turn my attention to the government’s programs for industry in the north. The Mining Tax Act which is so often decried by the members of the third party has, in fact, been of tremendous assistance to the northern communities. The benefits of the Act can be seen in the decision of Texasgulf to develop refining and smelting facilities in Timmins.

This alone has produced a great deal of employment, both in the construction and mining industries. This was the intent of the Mining Tax Act, while attempting to extract an increased return on natural resource industries for all the people of Ontario.

Then there is the Northern Ontario Development Corporation, which has incentive loans and term loans for the development of businesses --

Mr. Laughren: A joke.

Mr. Pope: -- which will contribute to the growth of northern Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: You will wear out the knees of your pants genuflecting to Lao Bernier. Mr. Pope: Among the loans made by NODC reported in the 1976-77 annual report of the corporation, are C & A Steel Fabricators of Sudbury, $108,000; Dhym Limited of Haileybusy, $500,000; Northern Cable Services Limited of Sudbury, $500,000 --

Mr. Conway: Such generosity.

Mr. Pope: -- Northern Customfab Incorporated of North Bay, $106,000 --

Mr. S. Smith: I didn’t think there were that many Tories up there.

Mr. Pope: -- and Sudbury Basin Spring Service and Welding Limited of Sudbury, $253,757.

Mr. Martel: They’re all closing now.

Mr. Pope: Many more examples could be given of assistance programs which benefit the northern part of the province.

Mr. Conway: Minaki.

Mr. Pope: Finally, with regard to the Sudbury area, the Premier announced last Thursday the formation of the cabinet committee on the economic future of mining communities.

Mr. Foulds: How much on Minaki?

Mr. Pope: Members heard or read the statement of the Premier, and I do not need to elaborate upon it.

Mr. Foulds: Why didn’t they appoint the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle) to that? What’s he doing in that Resources Development secretariat?

Mr. Pope: I would like to say, however, that no effort has been spared by the government in an attempt to solve the particularly difficult problems faced by the miners in Sudbury.

Mr. Conway: Is that your wife giving out medals these days?

Mr. Pope: The Inco layoffs demand special consideration, but this crisis alone does not mean that the government of Ontario has no viable strategy for northern Ontario.

Mr. Conway: Who’s giving these medal out in Timmins?

Mr. Pope: I have mentioned only a few of the examples that could be given to demonstrate the government’s commitment to orderly and productive growth for the northern part of the province. Plan by plan, program by program, it should be clear to everyone who cares to examine the record that the government has not ignored the north. Far from it, the programs I have mentioned are only parts of the whole, which is a reasonable, viable strategy for the north.

Mr. Conway: Twenty-eight hundred layoffs.

Mr. Pope: It should be obvious from what I have stated that the government has approached and is approaching the needs of the north, both in terms of the industries and in terms of the communities. What I take from the motion of the member for Sudbury is the idea that the third party is saying:

“Forget about the Hartt commission; forget about the municipal advisory committee” --

Mr. Foulds: That’s what the Minister of Northern Affairs said the other day in Sioux Lookout.

Mr. Pope: -- “forget about the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee” --

Mr. Martel: The Minister of Northern Affairs said forget about Hartt.

Mr. Pope: -- “forget about the mining municipalities in northern Ontario; forget about the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities; forget about the Northeastern Ontario Municipal Association.” In short, they are saying: “Forget about consultation and go ahead and act.”

This is not the style of this government, Mr. Speaker. The programs that help make up the northern strategy I spoke of earlier were all developed in full consultation with the people and the industries of the north.

Mr. Foulds: Postpone, postpone; delay.

Mr. Pope: The Inco problem is serious, and it has been addressed seriously. It is irresponsible for members opposite to talk of such things as influencing the international market for nickel when it is clear that the provinces, indeed the federal government, cannot control international prices.

Mr. Foulds: Or Inco for that matter.

Mr. Pope: Let me assure you that this government is acting to the best of its ability to help solve the problems of the day, with a long look to the future.

I would not be here today if the voters of Cochrane South did not agree with the manner and methods of the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario. What I sense, Mr. Speaker, in the motion of the member for Sudbury, although it is not spelled out in the resolution, is the idea that the NDP would like us to nationalize Inco, or all resource development companies for that m:atter.

Mr. Speaker, this was the issue on which the last election campaign was fought in northern Ontario; and while the leader of the

New Democratic Party was playing a game of lost horizons with that policy, it is now before us again as spoken by the leadership candidates of this party.

Mr. Deans: Do you know Kilmarnock is ashamed of you? I checked, they’re ashamed of you.

Mr. Pope: I say that this blind perversity and this blind unthinking commitment to an abstract philosophy --

Mr. Martel: Your colleagues are blind too. Mr. Pope: -- does not meet the needs of northern Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: For 33 years you haven’t met the needs.

Mr. Pope: The people of northern Ontario have spoken and said that they do not want it, and if you continue on the course that you are now following with the blind philosophy for the benefit of the south, you’re going to lose more than three seats in the next election.


Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of the House would like to recognize a former member of this Legislature, a former cabinet minister, Matthew Dymond, who was with us for many years.


Mr. Bolan: I rise to speak against this motion of no confidence which was brought by the member for Sudbury, a representative of the New Democratic Party. I had a long talk with Dick Smith this morning and he advised me to deliver this speech.

Mr. Martel: He wrote the Mining Act.

Mr. Bolan: I really don’t think the people of Ontario want to have an election as a Christmas gift. If one transposes the period of time which one must allow from the date that an election is called, this would bring us to December 24. Surely not even the members of the New Democratic Party would want to have an election on Christmas Eve. They must be accountable for something and the least they can do is give Santa Claus a break. When I first heard of this asinine motion, I started asking myself certain questions.

Mr. Deans: Did you get any answers?

Mr. Bolan: Whose benefit was it for? Is it for the benefit of the people of Sudbury who are thrown out of work as a result of this?

Mr. Deans: The answer is yes.

Mr. Bolan: Is it for the benefit of the many workers from my riding, from Nipissing, who are affected by this?

Mr. Martel: And the answer is yes.

Mr. Bolan: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, there are many workers in the Nipissing area who are affected by this.

Mr. Germa: What are you going to do about it?

Mr. Bolan: Within the west end of our riding we have anywhere from 50 to 75 workers who will be laid off as result of this. Not only that, before this announcement was even made the writing was on the wall in other industries within the Nipissing riding. I’m thinking of manufacturing companies like Jarvis Clark. I’m thinking of exploration companies like Canadian Longyear, Craig Bit and Mining Machinery and Equipment. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that before the layoffs in Sudbury came, there were well over 200 people in the city of North Bay, in the manufacturing industry related to mining, who were put out of work because the orders stopped coming in from Sudbury a long time before the actual announcement was made of shutting down? While all this was going on, where were they? What were they doing about it?

Mr. Germa: You’ve got a chance now to do something about it.

Mr. Bolan: Now we come back to the real purpose of the motion, and you have to ask yourself why is the motion being brought. The motion is being brought for their own derelict political posturing.

Mr. Lupusella: Don’t be silly.

Mr. Conway: Fall off the grandstand.

Mr. Bolan: That is the real motive behind the motion. I was in the House when the hon. member for Sudbury spoke out on the date of the emergency debate. To listen to this hon. gentleman speak one would think he is the only one in this House who ever worked in a mine.

Mr. Laughren: It was a great speech.

Mr. Bolan: One would think that he is the only one in this House who ever went down a shaft in a bucket or in a cage and worked in a drift or in a raise, or in a stope.

Mr. Laughren: All of this is coming from an over-priced lawyer.

Mr. Roy: He is a success.

Mr. Bolan: One would think he has a monopoly on having done hard work. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I too worked in the mines and I worked in the grimiest holes that you would ever want to think of, that is the mines in Cobalt.

Mr. Germa: I know about that.

Mr. Bolan: If you think for one minute that working in a mine in Sudbury is hardship, then you come on up to Cobalt and I’ll show you what it’s like.

Mr. Conway: So will I.

Mr. Bolan: I can assure you that working in the mines in Sudbury is living in a Taj Mahal as compared to what you can expect in the mines in Cobalt.

The hon. member for Sudbury also spoke about nationalization; couched behind this unworthy motion of his lie the undertones, of course, of nationalization. That’s the answer of the New Democratic Party -- nationalize. As soon as a problem presents itself, that’s it -- nationalize it. Let the government take over, that is their answer to everything.

Well now let’s look at that, let’s analyse that a little bit closer.

Mr. Martel: What does Dick Smith say?

Mr. Bolan: Let me ask this question to these members to my left: is nationalization of Inco going to create a better market for nickel in the world? Are we going to sell more nickel as a result? What are we going to accomplish? What is the cost of nationalizing moo, $2 billion? Fine, we will find it tomorrow. How about $3 billion, Elie? What is the cost of that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Deans: What’s is the cost of not doing it?

Mr. Bolan: This seems to be the philosophy of this party to the left, as soon as you have some kind of problem in an economy you nationalize the problem, you take it over.

Well let’s look at some of these things. Let’s look at some of the other areas in this province where there have been layoffs within the past two months.

Mr. Laughren: Another apologist.

Mr. Martel: You are sitting on the wrong side of the House.

Mr. Bolan: Quasar Electronics Canada Limited recently announced the shifting of production to the US with the loss of 125 jobs. Are you going to nationalize that one?

Mr. Germa: What are you going to do about it? Where’s your recipe?

Mr. Bolan: Why not nationalize it? Go ahead, let’s apply your logic all the way through. Let’s look at other areas which have not fared too well. Fort Erie and Port Colborne.

Mr. Martel: Are you talking about northern Ontario or us?

Mr. Bolan: They are losing 384 jobs there. Nationalize that as well.

Is there anything else they want to nationalize, Mr. Speaker? It is embarrassing and it is shameful.

Mr. Conway: We nationalized the classroom and look what happened.

Mr. Bolan: As far as the other side is concerned, Mr. Speaker, they have to share the responsibility for what has happened in this province.

Mr. Roy: The first thing we do is fire Leo.

Mr. Bolan: They have known for some time that this was going on. You know if a little backbencher on the side of the official opposition can find out in July there’s going to be 4,000 layoffs in Sudbury in the fall, then surely the boys on the other side are responsible to know about these things as well.

Mr. Germa: What are you going to do about it?

Mr. Bolan: Look at all of these old, tired faces sitting in that front row. Do you know what I see, Mr. Speaker? I see they are deeply lined. I see great etches in their faces; and those, Mr. Speaker, are lines of guilt. They are lines of guilt for mismanaging this province for the past 34 years.

Mr. Roy: Get on your knees, Leo, and apologize to the province.

Mr. Germa: Wash the blood off your hands, Leo.

Mr. Bolan: I would hope, Mr. Speaker, with the creation of a committee to look into this whole question some sensible solution other than the inanities spoken about by the people to the left will be arrived at.

Mr. Germa: Another study.

Mr. Ruston: Lean to the left, Michael.

Mr. Bolan: I would also hope, Mr. Speaker, with good sound planning emanating from the other side, emanating from this government in a minority position eventually we will be able to develop an industrial and resource strategy for the province of Ontario to see to it this type of problem does not arise again.

Mr. Deans: There isn’t a great deal of time, and I don’t want to waste time dealing with the comments of the member for Nipissing --

Mr. Roy: You should sit down right now.

Mr. Conway: This will be a first.

Mr. Deans: -- other than to remind him that his predecessor was much more enlightened, and understood the problem of the resource sector far more intelligently than has been evidenced by the speech we just heard.

Mr. Roy: You are going to have a problem with predecessors, too, Ian.

Mr. Deans: I want to suggest that the question before us is who, in fact, is going to govern the province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Stick to the resolution.

Mr. Deans: Is the province going to be governed by the corporate sector? Or is the government of Ontario going to exercise some responsibility on behalf of the people of Ontario to guarantee that there will be a reasonable share of the value of the resources of this province used in this province for future generations’ needs?

And that’s what the question is. The question is whether or not this government recognizes that the corporate sector in the province is now making all of the major decisions and that the decisions that are being made are not being made in the best interests of the province, but are rather being made in the best interests of the profitability of the companies involved. And that’s what we are faced with.

On numerous occasions over the last number of years this government has had before it reports dealing with the resource sector in this province. It has had reports which spoke directly to the problems of northern communities on the fact that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to develop an economy in the north if it is to be reliant almost entirely on the extractive and lumber industries; that there has to be a new infrastructure to guarantee that there will be secondary manufacturing; and that there will be job opportunities that will be lasting for people who live not only in northern Ontario today, but people who are going to come into northern Ontario to live in the future.

That requires government action. The government has had recommendation after recommendation with regard to how it ought to attempt to manage the resources of the province of Ontario. It has failed in every single instance to take any action.

My colleague from Sudbury and I sat on a select committee, which made a number of recommendations; not any of them, to my best recollection, dealt with nationalization. And yet those recommendations received the concurrence and support of every single member of that committee, whether they were on this side of the House or on the government side of the House. They spoke to the need for the government to be directly involved -- directly involved in managing the resources of the province, in the interests of the people of the province.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Are you going to nationalize or not? Make your position on it.

Mr. Deans: I want to suggest to the minister that it is said by many people that Ontario is extremely wealthy. When they say that, they speak about the resources we have, and the value of those resources. The fact of the matter is we are not extremely wealthy, because we have to ask: Who gets the wealth? And the answer is obviously, not the people of Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, that is nonsense. That is real nonsense.

Mr. Deans: I don’t need any comment from you, because I am coming to you In a minute.

Mr. Roy: Hang on.

Mr. Deans: The question is who pays the price?

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right. They are so much better off in socialistic countries.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This is your position now? Nationalization?

Mr Deans: If this was the first time that Inco had acted in a bad corporate way, then I could understand it. But this is the second time in this century that men have failed to recognize their responsibility to the province of Ontario. In fact, at the turn of the century, there was a considerable amount of upset throughout this province as a result of Inco not responding adequately to their responsibilities.

At that time -- for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition -- the Liberal Party had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and to say that the resources of the province of Ontario should be developed in the public sector.

Mr. S. Smith: Is that what you are saying now?

Mr. Deans: That’s where the Liberal Party stood, which is considerably different from where they stand now, for they are prepared to give the resources away without any consideration for the rate of return --

Mr. S. Smith: Are you saying that now? Are you for nationalization?

Mr. Deans: -- without any consideration for planning, and without any consideration for the future needs of the province.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: This is in fact the tip of the iceberg.

Mr. S. Smith: Are you for nationalization though?

Mr. Deans: This is the tip of the iceberg. What we have is a company that is fabulously wealthy in its own right.

Mr. S. Smith: Arid you are going to nationalize them, right?

Mr. Deans: men has been given concession after concession by the federal government; concession after concession by the provincial government. There has never been one single attempt made by this government to determine how those resources ought to be developed in Ontario for our benefit. And the difficulty we have is, by virtue of the giveaway programs of this government and its inability to come to grips with the kind of economic planning that is necessary, that this company has been able to take the wealth of Ontario and to put it outside of this country to develop alternative sources of the resource. Thus, we are now faced with a situation which will continue to deteriorate.

What we are seeing in Sudbury today is the beginning.

Mr. Martel: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: It’s not just simply a slight drop in the productive capacity. it is the beginning of a gradual phase-out of the operations in the Sudbury basin by Inco in the interests of the operations they are new developing in Indonesia and Guatemala.

If you take a look at the Guatemala and Indonesia situation you find that in one case they’re in partnership with the government. In the other case their partnership extends not only to the government hut to the Japanese interests, who in fact won’t now buy the refined ore from Ontario because they have an interest in getting it from where they have a partnership, and that’s in Indonesia.

Mr. S. Smith: Ten per cent.

Mr. Deans: I don’t care if it’s one per cent.

Mr. S. Smith: We could ship it from Sudbury into that subsidiary if we have to, and then to Japan.

Mr. Deans: Oh, could we?

Mr. Martel: That is what you advocate, fewer jobs.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: What we were faced with in the area was the union in Sudbury being quite prepared to enter into any kind of reasonable arrangements to preserve the jobs of the people there. Unfortunately the government wasn’t even interested in sitting down and talking about those things. The company, recognizing that it h:ad the full support of the Tory government of Ontario, didn’t feel any obligation to sit down and discuss what might reasonably be done in order to keep those jobs in place.

I think there are a number of things we’ve got to do in this province. I want to suggest them in the two or three minutes I have left.

I think the first thing we’ve got to do is develop a policy which brings an end to this government’s complicity in encouraging direct foreign investment in the resource sector.

I think secondly that we’ve got to make sure that in the mineral resource sector, particularly in nickel and copper where the jobs are already being lost, the government has to stop or make representation to Ottawa to stop all of the depletion allowances, all of the arrangements that are currently in place, until such times as we can come to an arrangement with Inco about its continued operations in this province.

I think the government has to launch a policy of pressuring the resource corporations into making sure their priorities are consistent with the priorities that may be in the best interests of the province of Ontario.

Finally, I think the government has to take a stand and say since the profitability of this corporation is immense, we will not have these layoffs take place until such time as there is a rationalization of the industry and an understanding of what the future development is to be.

I think the government has to sit down and begin a process of economic planning. That economic planning has to follow the patterns established by many industrial nations in the world, in that there has to be an overall economic plan. There has to be sector planning in the economy. That planning has to apply not only in the public sector but it must also apply in the private sector.

There has to be a clear understanding of what not only Inco will do, but what all of the oilier resource-based industries intend to do with regard to the future of Ontario. I think we must set economic priorities in this province. One of the primary priorities -- in fact, probably the single most important priority -- has to be jobs in this province. There has to be a clear understanding of what we expect from companies operating in this province, of what we expect by way of direct return in taxation, and of what we expect by way of what is called by the Treasurer “good corporate citizenship.”

I think we have to establish clearly in the province that the raw material potential is to be used in the interest of the province of

Ontario and of all Canadians. We have to make sure the resources are being developed in our best interest, because they are our resources.

I think we have to take steps to try to come to grips with the manufacturing sector directly related I to the mining industry. We’ve got to take a look at how we develop that manufacturing sector so we can, in fact, manufacture machinery, so we can, in fact, use the potential we’ve got in order to build an infrastructure for northern Ontario that would sustain itself through periods such as this we’re now going through.

In the public-private argument I’m convinced, looking historically at what’s happened throughout most, if not all, of northern Ontario, and looking back to the early part of this century, to what happened with International Nickel, we, the public of Ontario, have been abused, shortchanged and even cheated by the actions of companies such as Inco and by the action and non-action of this government and its predecessors.

Mr. Germa: Resign.

Mr. Deans: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the future development of resources in this province should and must be in the public sector. I want to tell you further the reason is because they are our resources and for 70-odd years, for 70-odd years we have allowed the private sector to develop them and we have virtually nothing to show for it.

Mr. Martel: Empty mine shafts.

Mr. Deans: We can’t possibly do the planning that has to be done in the interests of the people who are going to live here generations from now, unless we have a direct say in how those resources are to be developed.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am surprised you take that stand. I want to see where Mike stands.

Mr. Deans: We have an obligation to develop --

Mr. Wildman: A gold mine.

Mr. Deans: -- and to determine what is in our best interests -- and we have an obligation to develop an economic plan that will speak to the needs of this Ontario and a future Ontario.

Mr. Lane: I would like to congratulate the last speaker on a very good leadership speech. It was too bad there was no practical suggestion to the problems we are facing in Sudbury today.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Right on.

Mr. Lane: And it is also too bad the third party has to use this kind of a crisis for political purposes.

Mr. Wildman: Come on, John, you don’t believe that.

Mr. Cassidy: You are not a politician, eh?

Mr. Lane: I would like to go back a few years and think about how and when mining started in Sudbury. I understand it was about 1882 when the CPR tracks were being laid in Sudbury that the rich ore was discovered but copper was more important in those days than nickel.

Mr. Laughren: Address yourself to the issue. You know what the motion says.

Mr. Lane: The Canadian Copper Company was formed in 1886.

Mr. Germa: I read the book, John.

Mr. Lane: In about 1900 nickel became rather important and the Mond Nickel Company came on stream. These companies continued to operate until about 1929, when they were merged with Inco.

Mr. Martel: Tell us in your history analysis how we got a refinery in Canada.

Mr. Lane: I might point out at that time Inco had 5,780 people on its payroll. Now Inco has 17,000 people.

The city has grown with the company. Back in the 1930s when there weren’t any jobs for anybody, anywhere, people from my riding were able to get jobs with Inco in Sudbury, because as I said, they had 5,780 employed at that time.

Mr. Wildman: You know, John, if they had their druthers, they would be lack in Manitoba.

Mr. Lane: I am a little bit older than some of the members and I have been around a little bit more and maybe I am more of a northerner than some of them, but I worked in Sudbury in 1938 --

Mr. Germa: Why did you leave?

Mr. Lane: -- and I can recall going to the Inco employment office at 4 o’clock in the morning only to find that 500 men were in line -- some of them had been there all night -- trying to get a job with International Nickel. That is how scarce jobs were in those days. And Inco was one of the employers in my area.

Mr. Germa: Why is everybody leaving?

Mr. Havrot: Found out that you were there.

Mr. Wildman: Want to return to those days, John?

Mr. Lane: As a matter of fact, a number of the young farm boys from Manitoulin Island worked in Inco in the 1930s. Some saved enough money in the years of the depression to go back home and buy a farm which is still owned by that family. So Inco has done a lot of things, not only for Sudbury, but also for the surrounding area.


Mr. Laughren: Boy, this is some apology. Whose pocket are you in?

Mr. Lane: You know, Mr. Speaker, I did not really know how bad the people who run Inco were until I was elected as member for Algoma-Manitoulin in 1971 and heard the members from the Sudbury area tell this government almost on a daily basis what bad people were running moo.

Mr. Martel: And they were right. Look what they have done to us today.

Mr. Laughren: Now you.

Mr. Lane: I always felt the elected representative from any area, more or less, became the spokesman for that area.

Mr. Germa: We are.

Mr. Lane: When a member runs down his own riding --

Mr. Wildman: Oh, come on.

Mr. Germa: I am not in Inco’s pocket.

Mr. Lane: -- runs down his own town, runs down the company that built that town, I point out we would not have had a city of Sudbury with 100,000 people or so, had it not been for moo.

Mr. Wildman: How about that.

Mr. Laughren: You are an embarrassment; you embarrass your own party.

Mr. Lane: I am not saying by any stretch of the imagination Inco has done everything right, because there is no company that does everything right. But I will tell you one thing, if I were to get together all the Hansards published since I became a member six years ago, put them together in a book and handed it to moo, if they were not interested in Sudbury they would not just cut back on the jobs, they would simply move out of the area as a result of what members from that area have said.

Mr. Martel: I wish they would. I would even give them bus fare.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lane: I believe the hon. member said on one occasion before that they could do without Inco in Sudbury.

Mr. Germa: We will do it ourselves.


Mr. Martel: If they promised to leave I will even pack their bags.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: There’s blood on your hands, Leo. You are not one to talk.

Mr. Germa: Eleven dead men last year.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You don’t know what it is to make a dollar.

Mr. Laughren: Not dishonestly, that’s right. We don’t make dollars from the public the way you have.

Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, could I have some order please?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lane: If it wasn’t a sad situation we’re facing it would be almost funny.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Could we please stop the cross talk and allow the member to continue?

Mr. Laughren: You are being provocative.

Mr. Lane: The members from that area have been continually downgrading the company, downgrading the government --

Mr. Laughren: We don’t want blood on our heads.

Mr. Cassidy: We will keep on downgrading you, too.

Mr. Lane: -- saying we don’t need Inco. Now they’re saying save us, save us, save us from them.

Mr. Martel: Nationalize them, we will take them over. The Premier even made me the manager.

Mr. Lane: Certainly this government, the government that I’m proud to be a member of, will do everything possible to help the situation in Elliot Lake.

Mr. Laughren: Blood on your hands there, John.

Mr. Germa: How many dead men there, 34?

Mr. Lane: We have always responded to situations like that Elliot Lake had a few years ago which Sudbury has today. We respond to the needs of the people. We always have and we always will. And we’ll do everything that we can to help the situation we’re now faced with in Sudbury.

I don’t proclaim that we never did anything wrong, but we do have a very high batting average. The people of this province have enjoyed a very high standard of livelihood for the last 30 years because of that batting average.

Mr. Laughren: How about the miners at Elliot Lake?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: A banner province.

Mr. Lane: I am calling on all members of this House regardless of party affiliation to lend their efforts to help resolve this serious situation we now have in Sudbury and not just fry to make political marks on it.

I have here a copy of Hansard for June 27, 1977, where the hon. member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) is making a speech. He’s saying we should have a moratorium on all development north of the 50th parallel.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s right.

Mr. Lane: That’s what those people want, they want a moratorium on everything. When I was trying to get a Ministry of Northern Affairs so we’d have a vehicle for the north they fought me every inch of the way.

Mr. Foulds: And look what he’s done to save the jobs.

Mr. Lane: Just give us time. Those guys over there didn’t want the province to -- they wanted to make marks at the expense of people. They want to make marks now at the expense of the worker in Sudbury, that’s why they want an election.

Mr. Foulds: Marks? What the hell are you talking about? Do you know what you are talking about?

Mr. Lane: The lion, member of the official opposition hit the nail right on the head a while ago when he said there wasn’t anybody else so stupid in this country who would want an election at this time to resolve this kind of a problem. He was right on.

Mining has been the main source of employment in Sudbury now for nearly 100 years. I’m sure that if we do as I have suggested, and everybody lends their efforts to try and resolve the problem that we’re faced with, it will be the main source of employment a hundred years from now.

Mr. O’Neil: It’s a pleasure to make a few comments today concerning the problem that we have in Sudbury with Inco. As was mentioned by our leader in the few words be gave at the beginning of this afternoon, several from our party visited Sudbury during the summer months and spoke with some of the union members at that place. We were made aware of some of the serious problems which were pending, not only with Inco but also with Falconbridge. We met with labour people and management people, and came back and expressed our concern to our leader and our caucus members. As a result of that the Leader of the Opposition visited the area and had discussions of his own with people in that area.

Mr. Eaton: You mean he actually went back to the north? One time be said he wouldn’t.

Mr. O’Neil: As I say, we were very concerned, and our concern was that the government, which I understand had the same information in the dialogue with some of the union and management people, did not take steps to try to find a solution to this. I feel that a lot of the onus lies not only on the government but on the present Minister of Labour for not providing some better type of preventive medicine or sending a team of troubleshooters to the Sudbury area to talk to these people with whom we had talked and to try to solve the problem or to come up with some suggestions.

Some measures have been brought to light now, of course, such as the building program the province plans to initiate in Sudbury and some of the dialogue concerning travel between Sudbury and Elliot Lake, but again these are things that could have been started or put into effect many months ago, had the government moved a little.

Mr. Martel: The building was started two years ago.

Mr. O’Neil: Yes, but it hasn’t progressed to the extent it should have to put some of these people to work who are out of work now.

Mr. Martel: That’s the sop.

Mr. O’Neil: I say to my friend that he has his reasons for making his comments.

I was very pleased last week to introduce one of the things I think possibly could have got rid of some of the problems we have. I refer to the private member’s bill that I introduced last week, the purpose of which was to increase the time of notice to an employee whose employment is to be terminated where the employer plans to terminate employment with certain numbers of people -- SO to 200, 200 to 500, and over 500. If a bill such as this had been brought into this Legislature some time ago and put through, it would have solved many of the problems we have today.

Our leader has made some comments this afternoon about his desire that a committee, possibly a select committee, be set up to study the resource sector, and hopefully, that this would be set up after we have meetings, first of all, with Inco. It is our hope that such a select committee will be set up so we can look at the resources sector in this province to see that there is an overall plan that can be approached.

Mr. Foulds: Mackenzie King style: postpone, postpone; never do anything by halves what you can do by quarters.

Mr. O’Neil: The member for Wentworth a few minutes ago mentioned nationalization and made some comments concerning Inco. As was mentioned by the previous speaker, Inco can’t take all the blame. Mind you, there are a lot of things that could have been done by the company. But, on the other hand, I think we have to realize, as responsible people, that there wouldn’t be the jobs there are in the Sudbury area if it hadn’t been for the nickel companies. As was stated by the previous speaker, it has resulted in a very excellent area and a very nice city of Sudbury.

With the establishment of the committee, and if the Inco people and some of the business and labour people come before this committee, I hope we’ll come up with some of the solutions that are needed, that these people will not be put out of work and that it will be followed by a committee to study the total resource sector.

Mr. Germa: That was pretty weak.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I’m disturbed both by what the government has had to say about this resolution today and by what the official opposition has had to say.

Mr. S. Smith: And your two colleagues.

Mr. Cassidy: The cabinet is meeting while Sudbury bleeds to death. The leader of the official opposition says we should have more meetings; he wants to huff and puff like the big bad wolf in the fairy tale in the hope that Inco somehow is going to come to heel.

Mr. Eaton: Talk about huffing and puffing; that’s you.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s simply not true that the strategies of the government have been effective, and it’s certainly not true that the work of the official opposition is going to have any effect at all.

I grant that the government has put a certain amount of money into northern Ontario. But the thing that bothers me about the statements that have been made in the House today is the belief of the government. They are so opposed to any kind of government spending that they believe every nickel and every dime that is spent from government funds in the north is a gift rather than the right of the people of northern Ontario.

They do not understand that for year after year, and decade after decade, southern Ontario has been milking the north dry and it’s about time we reversed that particular process. That’s what this resolution is about. It speaks to the layoffs at Into and it speaks to the failure of the government of this province to develop a viable strategy for the economic development of the north so we are not subject to the boom and bust cycle of a dependence on resources.

The government has mismanaged the north. It has mismanaged the economy. Now we are having to try and pick up the pieces at a time when the economy of the province is weak and when it is exceptionally difficult to put the whole situation back together.

I want to read to you, Mr. Speaker, some statements by the Premier of this province, commitments which sounded pretty good but which in fact had no meaning at all. Back in April of 1976, he introduced the Design for Development documents into the House to say how we were going after 10 years of planning in the province. He said the government aimed at the increased development of the north. They have botched that, Mr. Speaker.

He said the government aimed at diversified development of the east. They mismanaged that. Mr. Speaker.

He said the government wanted to see the enlightened use of our natural resources. They have mismanaged that, Mr. Speaker. He said the government wanted to see development of strategies for the careful use of mining and lumbering reserves -- mismanaged and botched all the way, Mr. Speaker.

In Trends and Options, which was the major statement of the government’s policy about how they wanted to develop this province, they talked about a balanced growth across the province and the reduction of economic disparities. Well, Darcy McKeough doesn’t talk that language any more, because it has been botched -- mismanaged, Mr. Speaker -- and we are not making any progress.

The government said in particular it would be his aim to have the stimulation of economic growth in northern Ontario. What we have now is the deindustrialization of the north. Now people who have worked and lived for generations in northern Ontario are having to pay the price.

The Treasurer said good planning is simply good management. We agree with that. We find a failure in good management on the Part of the government and now the problems are being felt up in northern Ontario.

The government says it’s committed to comprehensive and effective provincial and regional planning. They said they were reaffirming that particular policy, hut in fact they have been backing away from it on a systematic basis.

Both the government’s own documents and the Ontario Economic Council point to the failure to develop growth in the north, to the slowdown in the primary industries, to the fact that incomes in the north are below the provincial average and to the fact that the social and cultural amenities people should have in northern Ontario simply have not been installed because this government exists for southern Ontario and not to give equal opportunities to people across the province.

The government over the past 10 years has systematically destroyed what once looked like a promising effort to get into systematic planning for the province. When Design for Development began, it was a plan; now it is simply a strategy. Originally it was going to be acted upon; now they are looking for comments and nothing more. That’s particularly true with relation to northeastern Ontario. We have to try and build a balanced economy, when economic conditions are tough, because we didn’t work to build a balanced economy when economic conditions were booming.

The government is setting up a committee to examine the future of the mining communities after disbanding six years ago the development councils which were designed to do specifically that in northeastern Ontario.

The government has failed to establish the advisory committees which were called for in the Design for Development process in order to ensure that there would be local input into the planning exercise which is now being abandoned.

What we have instead is a Treasurer who says -- and I quote, believe it or not: “With just a little more social awareness in the decisions of the private sector about where they set up new operations, we could have a significant impact on regional development.” That’s what this government believes about regional development. Stand back and let the private sector do it all.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, I have been gravely disappointed, when we have come to the specific questions about Inco, in the lack of concern of the government and in their failure to take any effective actions -- even to put up the pretence of trying.

We asked the Treasurer whether he had any specific figures for the tax concessions given to the company. He said, “No.”

We asked if he had ever talked to the company and asked them to create jobs on the basis of the tax concessions they are being given. He said, “No.”

Had anybody else from the government done that? He said, “No.”

We asked if Inco was a good corporate citizen. He said: “Yes.” The Minister of Industry and Tourism said the same thing. We profoundly disagree that a company which has created jobs in the north but has failed to reinvest its profits in the north, has created pollution in the north, has built up a multi-national enterprise in the United States, in Wales, in Guatemala, and in Indonesia without any sense of responsibility at all to what is happening in northern Ontario, can be considered as a good corporate citizen.


It goes even further than that. Last May, the Treasurer and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) met with Inco and asked them how they were doing. Inco described its ventures in the developing world. They patted them on the head and said; “That’s great.”

Inco described what it was doing in the field of undersea mining of nickel nodules, and the Treasurer says now, “It is fair to say we gave them a great deal of encouragement.”

“That was great,” they said. “Take your marbles out of this country, and we’ll cheer as you take your wealth from northern Ontario out of the country.”

This government has failed to give direction to the private sector in northern Ontario in the development of Ontario’s publicly-owned resources. This government has failed. Other people in the private sector have stepped in and have given instructions to Inco, which it heeded when it would not even consider talking to this government

What hasn’t come to the public’s attention vet is the fact that shortly before Inco began that two-week process of deciding on the layoffs, they had a letter from Moody’s and a letter from Standard and Poors, the two major bond rating institutions down in New York. Moody’s cut Inco from a rating of AA to A, and Standard and Poors adjusted them from AA to AA minus.

When the financiers on Wall Street spoke, Inco shut down in Sudbury. That’s the truth of the capitalistic system as it applied to northern Ontario. That was an inevitable consequence when this government faded to plan for the future of northern Ontario, and left the future of 2,800 miners and the future of this province in the hands of the private sector.

A company whose reserves are worth $35 billion proven and $100 billion sitting there in the ground should have more responsibility than that. A company with $1.5 billion of working capital and $800 million worth of assets should be prepared to put off those layoffs until adequate provision is made for the future development of northern Ontario.

A government which is concerned about the future of this province should ensure that our public resources are used to ensure jobs, and ensure that a diversification of the economy take place. That’s not occurring right now. It hasn’t planned over the last 10 years. The government hasn’t responded to these particular layoffs, it is resigning itself to the private sector, and all of the impact that that sector is having on our people today. We say that isn’t good enough. We say it is time we go back to the people of the province and install a new government, which can plan adequately for the future of northern Ontario and for Ontario as a whole.

Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to you, sir, that we only have 14 minutes and 48 seconds left for our party, so we will hold off and use it for a windup speech. If there are other members who wish to speak they can continue the debate until we have our 15 minutes.

Mr. Deans: Just one quick comment. Well, that is true; you would of course speak second last.

Mr. Maeck: I am not objecting to that, but I want to be sure the members use all the time. We have used our share, we want to reserve the other 15 minutes.

Mr. Kerrio: At the outset I would like to say that it’s a very irresponsible motion. If it were to accomplish something it would be worth considering but the party left of us knows fundamentally that there is nothing to be gained by passing this motion on the floor of this Legislature.

Mr. Foulds: It might turf the beggars out. That might accomplish something.

Mr. Kerrio: The fact of the matter is that at a time when Canada led the world in nickel deposits and supply, nothing was done in the way that would cause us to have the kind of impact that could have been had on the markets of the world. Since then, the discovery of nickel in many other areas certainly has put us in an entirely different position.

I think the responsibility of those of us on the floor of the Legislature as far as private enterprise is concerned is to see to it through a tax structure and through a responsible position in this Legislature that those people that are given the opportunity and the privilege of extracting the ores from this country of ours are made to pay a fair share of taxes and to make a commitment to a reinvestment in the country that they extract these ores from.

The fact that nationalization could even be considered as a way out is certainly kidding everyone in this province. The fact that hardly anything that’s nationalized or run by the government is as competitive as the free enterprise system is easily proven.

Mr. Laughren: That’s an in-depth analysis.

Mr. Ziemba: It sure beats unemployment.

Mr. Kerrio: I rise here to suggest that we have had a recent election, that there is nothing to be proven by an election and that the foisting of an election on the citizens of this province at this time is not going to help the Inco workers, and that’s what we should be addressing ourselves to.

It just so happens that as recently as three days ago I rose on the floor of this Legislature to ask the Premier of this province if he would address himself to seeing if we can move the federal government into purchasing pipe for the pipeline that is manufactured in Ontario, in Welland, if you will. That’s the kind of constructive criticism we need in this Legislature today. Those are the things that will create jobs. Those are things that are immediate and in the offing.

I stand here and tell the party to the left that they can move this piece of legislation across the floor and if there was by some chance a miracle that it might pass, they would accomplish nothing -- absolutely nothing.

Mr. Laughren: Try us.

Mr. Kerrio: It’s a posture they’re taking that is not going to fool anyone in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: Ask your leader about Port Colborne.

Mr. Breithaupt: What about it?

Mr. Kerrio: To get back to the suggestion that I have for that party, I would suggest to them --

Mr. Laughren: The Liberal Party would wipe out Port Colborne completely.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. S. Smith: How many orders would nationalization get for Port Colborne?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. Would the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the third party please allow the member for Niagara Falls to continue.

Mr. Samis: Start over again.

Mr. Kerrio: I say it’s time to address ourselves in this House to meaningful input, to doing something that would have a good chance of creating jobs, not to attempt to put something on the floor that takes up our time and that isn’t going to accomplish anything in the way of providing jobs for the workers in Ontario.

I would like to get back to the original statement that I made, if those people on the left would listen. We have now committed ourselves to putting one of the biggest construction lobs into place in the western part of Canada.

Mr. Laughren: You are a hero.

Mr. Kerrio: The major portion of the contract for the installation has been let to a construction company. We have not committed ourselves to the purchasing of the pipe, which is a billion-dollar purchase. It can be manufactured in Welland, Ontario. a stone’s throw from Port Colborne where Inco has put so many people out of work. I tell members this is the kind of constructive criticism that should be directed at the government, hut it also should be put to the people over there. It’s the kind of thing we have to address ourselves to make this economy move.

That kind of thing the party to my left is doing today and the kind of time it’s taking up today is going to accomplish nothing. I would say to them that I’ve asked the Premier of this province to participate and to get to the federal government. The installation part of the pipeline contract has been let but the pipe has not been bargained for as yet.

Mr. Laughren: You should hear what I told him.

Mr. Kerrio: The Americans are expecting a part of the order. All that we’ve been committed to so far is that it’s going to be done in a way that’s competitive. At this juncture, we need a little bit more of a guarantee than that. I say in all fairness to the Canadian scene that as the pipeline is crossing Canadian territory we should have a good portion of that commitment to the Canadians. In that way we’ll have it committed to Ontario. It is one of the few jurisdictions that can produce the type of product that is being looked for.

I say to the members of the NDP with respect -- and I’ll tell them they will not budge me from the position -- that any place in the whole world where this socialist jurisdiction has prevailed has been a complete and utter failure. We still can stand proudly and suggest to the members to my left that the free-enterprise system is still the only way to go.

That thing they presented on the floor here today is going to fail because it’s going to accomplish absolutely nothing and that is what that party has to offer this whole society of ours -- nothing.

Mr. MacDonald: You ought to read Canadian history.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House expresses lack of confidence in this government, and I suppose that is fair enough. But at a time like this I wonder if it in fact is the appropriate response of a responsible government to a problem we all face. You know, in the opposition all three respective candidates for the leadership have talked about nationalization of the company as the solution. Nationalization will not sell metal.

Mr. Laughren: So simplistic.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The simplistic part of this House is not on this side or in this part of this side, it is in that part of the House.

Mr. S. Smith: Let the record show he pointed to the NDP.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think in fact we have, as the introducer of the motion pointed out very early in the game, two basic problems and the first is the immediate problem of helping the displaced workers in the Sudbury area either to retain theft jobs with Inco, or to help them to find employment elsewhere.

As a matter of fact, I think a good deal is going on at this point. Last week, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the Premier appointed me as chairman of a committee to look into both the short-term and the long-term problem. That is a job that I have taken on with enthusiasm. I have met with my colleagues, I have met twice with representatives of, first, the northern mining communities and, second, with the Sudbury committee, as I believe it calls itself. I found them to be a very, very responsible mixture of labour, management and business people from the community. In fact, it was one of the most reassuring things I have seen.

Mr. Martel: We are on that committee by the way.

Hon. F. S. Miller: All right, but the people present at that meeting were responsible. I will phrase it that way.

Mr. Martel: No, we made the decision they asked for.

Hon. F. S. Miller: This group, while having individual differences, is interested in solutions, not in rhetoric. This House needs to be interested in solutions and not in rhetoric.

Mr. Lewis: What is the minister going to do?

Hon. F. S. Miller: What am I going to do? First, both management and labour have assured us that they need some time to complete certain discussions they are now having. That, I am sure, is an encouraging sign. I hope those in the NDP party accept it as encouraging --

Mr. Lewis: Not NDP party, the NDP.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am sorry, the member is correct. I am being redundant.

An hon. member: It’s not a party -- it’s a movement.

Hon. F. S. Miller: It is a collection of free souls who found no other banner to associate them.

We are working with that group and I would hope before too many days or weeks pass we will have the opportunity to visit them up there after there has been time for the decisions or the discussions between the company and the union to have been completed. They are anxious for us to wait for that time and we are willing to.

In the meantime, we have taken two positive steps: We have shown our faith in the community because we believe the community of Sudbury has a great future, and we need to help them through what is a present trough until that time. In the long range what this province will be doing --


Mr. Lewis: You have offered nothing in the short range.

Mr. Speaker: I think I have the member for Scarborough West down to speak later.

Hon. F. S. Miller: From 5.42 to 5.50.

Mr. Lewis: Do you, Mr. Speaker? All right, whatever you say.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In the long range of course, we have to be concerned about this province’s mines’ ability to compete in world markets. In fact, we have to be concerned about attracting the investment to develop the future mines which most assuredly will be found in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Mackenzie: What about their problems going out of the province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: This province has the best technology in the world for the discovery of ore bodies. That, in fact, is one of our export products. We are exporting the expertise to discover mines in other countries as a business.

Mr. Reid: Guatemala, Indonesia.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes. Is it not better that Canadians be involved in the process than not involved?

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, but do you understand what it means?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m talking about exploration right now, not development. They are entirely different things. I see as my duty as minister the responsibility, with my committee, to find a tax structure which will maximize employment in mining and processing in northern Ontario. That has to be a very neat balance between extremes. I’ve heard one side which says, sell everything we can in as unfinished a state as we possibly can, via Indonesia or any other mute.

Mr. S. Smith: Seventy-five per cent product, you know darn well.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has already spoken.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The other extreme won’t ship anything out until it’s finally refined. In today’s world, it’s not a seller’s market, it’s a buyer’s market and the policies will need to reflect that.

Mr. S. Smith: So we shouldn’t buy either.

Hon. F. S. Miller: If one looks at it, there are some seven or eight jobs in the mines for every job in the refining process. That’s the key thing; the mining is the greatest part of the labour content of the extraction and processing of our ores. As a country, we need to make it amply evident to the people we are dealing with, the people who have a choice of developing ore bodies here or ore bodies in some other location, they can count on private ownership of their mine through the duration of its life. They can count on a tax system that will be equitable so they in turn will have a return on their investment.

Mr. Laughren: Want to tell them to lower the price?

Mr. Mackenzie: Get rid of the surplus.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That’s one of our future policies. We have to look at many other things in the north that don’t relate to mining, but specifically I’m going to take a good look at that with my committee in the near future.

I have begun to talk about these problems with the Ontario Mining Association. We had our second meeting on that topic yesterday.

Mr. Martel: I have been asking for that for 10 years.

Hon. F. S. Miller: And we will continue those. They are very complex discussions.

Mr. Martel: Well, you are in trouble today, aren’t you, because you didn’t act?

Hon. F. S. Miller: They probably took the advice from whence it came and ignored it, as they should have done.

Mr. Martel: You’re in trouble today, aren’t you?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m in trouble today because I listened too often to the member for Sudbury East. In any case, Mr. Speaker, I’m satisfied there is a danger of overreaction. There is a danger of frightening away the very people on whom we need to count for the continuation of the success of the Sudbury basin. I’m convinced our committee and this government has within its hands --

Mr. Lewis: Who would you frighten away?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just ignore the interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’ll rephrase it, Mr. Speaker. Let me put it this way. Prophesies, as you know, are often self-fulfilling. One of the problems we face in this country is taking a calamity such as has happened in this area and talking about it to the point where we frighten many other people from making decisions they otherwise would have made. Which in turn, cuts down on retail purchasing, which cuts down on manufacturing, which increases unemployment and which deepens the cycle. To me, that is the basic problem I hear when I hear the opposition talking about lack of concern for our government.

I’m sure there are other speakers who wish to speak and I’ll stop here.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Conway: Now here is Liberal and Labour.

Mr. Martel: The only one in the House.

Mr. Reid: He used to be a friend of mine.

I sympathize a great deal with the motion as put forward by the member for Sudbury --

Mr. Mackenzie: However.

Mr. Reid: -- because as a member from northern Ontario I share his frustration. Besides feeling frustrated about the lack of action by the government, I also feel a certain amount of despair about the whole situation, because I have been a member of the House for 10 years. While I won’t ask you to concur with my remarks, I think you, Mr. Speaker, probably share the feeling of the people of northern Ontario. In my 10 years here, we’ve seen very little by way of improvement of the situation in northern Ontario.

There’s not much coming forth from the government benches to really indicate that that situation is going to change. The Minister of Natural Resources, in his usual --

Mr. Wildman: Affable.

Mr. Reid: Thank you -- affable style, has sort of calmed the waters in saying: “Now, this is our future policy and we’re going to do this 10 or 20 years from now.” We have a press release and a statement from the Premier that were going to have, in response to this crisis in Sudbury, a cabinet committee set up, composed of the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Northern Affairs, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

I would like to ask, and since the Premier is with us, perhaps he can answer, why, in the name of all that is holy, first of all, is the minister responsible for resource development in this province not on that committee? Considering his depth of knowledge in regard to resource development --

Mr. Conway: Indian affairs.

Mr. Reid: Indian affairs, and bilingualism, all of which he is responsible for, and has displayed an amazing grasp of nothing concerning these matters, what is that particular minister doing? The other person who should be, who makes all the decisions in the government and who is not on this committee, is the Treasurer. It doesn’t matter what the Minister of Natural Resources says, or the Minister of Industry and Tourism, or the Minister of Labour, and certainly, least of all, what the Minister of Northern Affairs says because it’s going to be the Treasurer who makes the ultimate and final decision. We know what his response is: “Nothing can be done.”

Mr. Martel: For 20 years in the north.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What is this all about anyway?

Mr. Reid: The fault does not lie entirely with the provincial government. The federal government is to be condemned also, because we have no national industrial strategy. We have no natural resource strategy. We have no national transportation policy; that should be an integral part of those matters.

Mr. Conway: Throw them out.

Mr. Reid: But that does not excuse the provincial government from having carried on in the same manner, with a complete lack of policy and direction, in northern Ontario.

Mr. Swart: Lack of economic planning.

Mr. Reid: For some 10 years, myself and yourself, Mr. Speaker, and others, have asked for some policy in regard to resource communities in northern Ontario and one-industry towns. We’ve got no response from the policy ministry, the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development. r tried to get in the back door, so to speak, once by imploring the Minister of Labour to look at the effects of strikes in one-industry towns -- to highlight the problem of the economy of a one-industry town, all of which, with few exceptions, are in northern Ontario.

Mr. Conway: Is Brampton a one-industry town?

Mr. Reid: This government has got to be condemned equally with the federal government for the lack of policy in this regard. It’s a sad state of affairs that with the bureaucracy and the number of civil servants and the cabinet committees and all the highly-priced people that we have -- and some of them are very good -- we have only to come up with some kind of holding policy when we run into what amounts to a veritable crisis, whether it be Reed Paper and the mercury situation, or whether it be Inco and the layoffs.

We have no response to these things. I’d be the first to admit there are no easy solutions. Obviously, with all due respect to my friend I think he’s put the motion to emphasize his frustration, his despair, and to underline the importance of having these kinds of policies. Obviously, that is the reason this motion is there, because an election is not going to solve the problems of Sudbury.

Mr. Speaker, we have a stranger in the House. I would ask your indulgence while we introduce him to the House. The leader of the federal New Democratic Party, Mr. Broadbent, is with us. He is obviously here, Mr. Speaker, to get some policy positions from the Ontario Liberal Party to take back with him to Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He will be very disappointed if that is why he came.

Mr. Reid: He can only go up. It can only be an improvement.

Mr. Conway: He is here for the leadership race.

Mr. MacDonald: He is more perceptive than that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, you are right, but I will tell you why he is here some time.

Mr. Breaugh: We already know and we don’t care.

Mr. Breithaupt: Another appointment?

Mr. Reid: Does Walter Pitman need an associate at Ryerson?

The Minister of Natural Resources has mentioned some future policies again --

Mr. Mattel: That is down the road.

Mr. Reid: -- and that is not going to cure the problems we’re going to have. We might as well face the fact and the reality now. Sudbury is only the first of many problems we’re going to have in the resource communities of northern Ontario in the next few years.

I would like to commend, to speak about corporate responsibility, the attitude that Steep Rock Iron Mines is taking in the community of Atikokan. There, the iron ore mine is phasing out; the available ore is gone. There are some 600 workers who are going to be affected when that operation closes down, and yet Steep Rock has been working to develop an ore body, an alternative ore body, at Bending Lake.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’ve been working with them.

Mr. Reid: Just a minute. So those people can be employed, Steep Rock, one of the few Canadian-owned and managed companies in Canada in the mining field I believe, is showing that kind of corporate responsibility. I will say, and put on the record, that the Ontario government is, in fact, working with Steep Rock to, hopefully, make that Bending Lake property, a reality.

Hon. F. S. Miller: You’re trying to justify two hospitals.

Ms. Reid: Yes, and I am sure that the minister who has such a personal stake in the community, the Minister of Natural Resources, will continue to work with Steep Rock and to provide the assistance that is necessary to keep those 600 people employed. But we have to have more than an ad hoc approach to resource communities in northern Ontario.

I have voluminous correspondence with the Treasurer in regard to these matters going back some years in his first emanation as minister and in his present emanation as minister. The only consistent policy the government has is we deal with these matters on an ad hoc basis. We cannot afford to keep doing this. We have to have some consistent policies in regard to secondary industry in northern Ontario.


Nobody expects that, all of a sudden, because of something the government does there are going to be small industries popping up in every community in northern Ontario. We must face the fact some of the smaller ones are going to have to be phased out. There is just no doubt about that. I think we would be unfair to raise the level of expectations to say that some of those communities are going to continue. But we must have a consistent policy to deal with these matters, and it must be done in conjunction with the federal government.

Because this matter deals specifically with mining communities, and with Sudbury in particular, I don’t want to get into discussing forestation and the issue of reforestation, but surely -- and I said this to the Premier when he made the announcement of the special committee -- the guidelines of that committee should be broadened to deal with all the resource communities, particularly also those that are dependent on the forest resources. I hope in fact, that will happen.

Those are a few of my thoughts, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you have heard them before. Again, I sympathize with the position put forward by my friend from Sudbury but I must say that I don’t think the ultimate result of his motion would really solve the problems that we see today in Sudbury.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Renfrew North for four minutes.

Mr. Conway: Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to be left such a generous allocation by my colleague from Rainy River. Therefore, I do want to restrict y remarks to generalities.

Mr. Deans: How could you speak other than in generalities?

Mr. Roy: They should be familiar with that on the other side.

Mr. Conway: It is with a great deal of personal interest that I can take part in this debate this afternoon. There is a tendency in certain parts of this caucus, I think, to want to support much that is behind this confidence motion because this party, and certainly those of us who represent what might be considered areas beyond the southwestern Ontario region, have a keen appreciation for the very substantive matters that are raised by our good friend, the member for Sudbury.

As has been mentioned, I think very properly, this Inco situation reflects very keenly the frailty of much of the Ontario economic structure. To anyone who has had any observation about the growth and development of regional economies in this province, I think the one impression that must rest most directly over and above all others is that the east and the north particularly reflect in economic terms a clear and definite intention by the metropolitan south to develop those regions in purely colonial terms.

I would go further in saying that northern Ontario, certainly from the beginnings of this century, was developed in economic terms as a colony of the industrial south. The resource economy that has grown and developed, particularly under the aegis of the Ontario Progressive Conservative tradition, has done nothing but reinforce that colonial relationship.

In the few moments and seconds that I have left, I want to say, not only on behalf of the northern Ontarians but certainly on behalf of those people in eastern Ontario who can well appreciate the seriousness of the economic difficulties relating to the Inco layoffs -- layoffs that were brought to this

Legislature without any prior consultation, despite the expression of a contrary position some months earlier about the need for communication on behalf of government and the private sector -- that the colonization attitude of this government and of much of the multi-national sector is at the root of this problem.

The answer surely must not be a Christmas Eve election, which certainly the hon. gentlemen to my left do not want, but the maintenance of this minority government to bring this particular party and its administration of colonial economics to heel in this chamber. It is for that reason that I cannot, as much as on philosophical grounds I might like to, support the resolution; and I will not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will make every effort to confine myself to the six minutes, which for me will not be easy but I will certainly do my best.

Mr. MacDonald: You will not only make an effort but you will confine yourself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly I will confine myself, as long as I am not interrupted too often.

Mr. Speaker: Five minutes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That has to be the fastest minute in the history of this House. At the outset, without in any way suggesting there is any partisan feelings in this motion --

Mr. Deans: There is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I would like to say to the member for Sudbury and the two other members of the New Democratic Party caucus that I understand and am sympathetic towards the very legitimate concerns they have expressed on behalf of their constituents. I can’t really add a great deal to the lack of logic, the lack of intelligence and the lack of understanding --

Mr. Laughren: You can add a lot.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that is contained in a motion that would in its resolution, as they see it, provoke an election at a time in the history of this province when it is something I genuinely believe we do not need and which would not solve any problems --

Mr. Lewis: That’s not what you told us when you called one.

Mr. Conway: That was a painful lesson, wasn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and would not serve the interests of the people of Sudbury or the Sudbury basin.

Mr. Conway: A $20-million lesson.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t say this in any critical sense but --

Mr. MacDonald: Of course not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- as I listened to a lot of criticism, I didn’t hear ton many constructive ideas emanating from anybody across the House On this occasion. It’s great to stand up and be emotional -- and I would be emotional too, speaking for my constituents, I understand that -- but if that party really wants to solve problems, it is not going to solve them by this particular no confidence motion. It is not going to solve the long-term problems of Inco by nationalization.

I have to go on record as saying that sort of proposal would, in my view, lead to greater difficulties in Sudbury, greater employment problems and probably to a lack of a competitive position on the part of Inco, and that is what provides the jobs for so many of their constituents. Their theory of nationalization, in today’s climate just would not work. I am surprised they would even promote that, although I understand the three leadership candidates are all totally committed to it.

I too would like to welcome Mr. Broadbent. Mr. Broadbent is here, incidentally, not to listen to the debate. He is here to speak to the Premier of the province. I will be delighted to welcome him later on in my office when we will discuss in a logical way the unemployment problems that exist here in this province. I will certainly give him the benefit of my advice.

Mr. MacDonald: I hope you give him more than you have given us.

Mr. S. Smith: He has the benefit of my sympathy.

Mr. Martel: He is not going to learn much.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, he has a point of view. ii appreciate the fact that he recognizes the great leadership that has been given in economic terms in this province and wants to find out how it is we are making it work.

Mr. MacDonald: He just cancelled the appointment.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am interested in the solution of problems -- Mr. Speaker, I am being interrupted.

Mr. Speaker: You are indeed. Will the hon. members for York South and Scarborough West try to contain themselves.

Mr. Lewis: I haven’t said a thing. This is a congenital affliction of yours.

Mr. Speaker: I am anticipating you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want equal treatment. They should both “decease”; one did in a political sense and the other is in the process.

Mr. Lewis: Which one of us is that?

Mr. Conway: Just keep your eye on the Brutuses behind you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I never worry about the people behind me.

Mr. Speaker: The Premier has one minute.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can tell the member for Renfrew North it’s the leader of his party who should keep an eye behind him, and to his left and to his right; he should be looking all over as a matter of fact.

Mr. S. Smith: I find cabinet material in each direction.

Mr. Conway: The member for Brock (Mr. Welch) is an eminently fine fellow.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would urge in this one minute that is left that the members of the New Democratic Party understand one thing. We face a serious economic problem in the Sudbury basin, I don’t minimize it; but your solutions don’t make any sense, they won’t work.

We’re living in a world marketplace. This government understands it, and we’re committed to the solution of these problems in the long-term basis. I’m very optimistic that we will achieve those solutions.

You can belittle the cabinet committee, you can belittle many of the things that they’re doing, but let me remind the members of the House one thing --

Mr. S. Smith: Why is the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle) not on that committee?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that this province, in economic terms, in the time that I have been a member of this House --

Mr. Swart: Is fine.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- has prospered, has grown more than any other jurisdiction in Canada, more than any other jurisdiction in North America; and that it’s going to continue under this administration.

Mr. Germa: Industrial wasteland.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I finish, I appeal on a very genuine basis to the leader of the New Democratic Party: Let’s not partisanize this issue. Let’s try to find solutions; let’s not, as he did this morning --

Mr. Speaker: Time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- tend to escalate the matters in his communication on the air. And please, in his eight minutes will he impress upon his colleagues that he has changed his mind and he too will show some sense and show confidence in the government of the province of Ontario at this very important time in Our history.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it will distress the Premier to know that not only have I not changed my mind, but the absence of anything concrete in his finale to the government position reaffirms in my mind and our mind yet again that this kind of motion is absolutely indispensable at this point in time in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Stephen, you know and I know you are playing politics; everybody knows you are playing politics.

Mr. Lewis: I want to say to the Premier that I didn’t want, we did not want, to have to move this kind of motion. We wanted to wait and we did, to see whether any initiatives would come from the government which were a feeling and real response to the predicament of the Sudbury basin.

After two weeks of discussion, consultation and negotiation, and every other invention available to you, you came up with a building which had been promised before and a ministerial committee on which sits a minister in this House whose negligence over the last several years is largely responsible for the problem that is debated today.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Stephen, I can always tell when you believe what you are saying and when you don’t.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, if I may say as amiably and affectionately as I can -- I know winning plaudits even of the Liberal Party in this case -- put Rene Brunelle on, take Leo Bernier off.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You are still smarting over Minaki.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may say to you, sir, the record of the government in dealing with the resource communities has been pretty abysmal over the years. The Premier may have forgotten that I go back 14 years in this House. The Premier goes back even further than that, but he may have forgotten the record in northeastern Ontario.

Perhaps he remembers 1958 -- the northeastern Ontario region economic survey; perhaps he remembers 1966 -- the update of the northeastern Ontario economic survey; perhaps he remembers the report in July, 1968, on the public sector and northeastern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You did this with education. They were all American publications when you did it the last time.

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps the Premier remembers February, 1969 -- the five-year development program final report for northeastern Ontario; perhaps he remembers September, 1969 -- the northeastern Ontario regional development program; perhaps he remembers 1971 -- Design for Development, Northeastern Ontario, where in the very first few pages there occurred the following paragraph:

“The region as a whole has a narrow and relatively slow-growing economic base. This is the case in most of the larger centres, and is particularly so in the many smaller communities. If under these conditions the dominant industry declines, substantial hardship follows, because few, if any, alternative forms of employment are available.”

The litany for 20 years; and when :Inco lays off 8,000 people, the Premier has utterly no response whatsoever, he is politically bankrupt again. How does he answer; how does he answer?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: How ridiculous can you get.


Mr. Lewis; May I point out, Mr. Speaker, despite all the evidence, despite all the work, despite all the recommendations which have come forth since 1958 in one report after another, nothing happened. Despite other considerations and factors as well; despite the fact Inco has taken $1.7 billion in profits out of the Sudbury basin over the last several years; despite the fact Inco is using Ontario money to buy the battery plant in the United States for nearly a quarter of a billion dollars, a plant which is now self-sufficient in Inco’s diversification in its manufacturing sector while our mining sector goes down the drain; despite the fact Inco took our money --

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not going down the drain.

Mr. Lewis; -- from Ontario and went to Guatemala and Indonesia --


Mr. Mackenzie; It hurts, doesn’t it fellows, it hurts.

Mr. Speaker; Order, order. I cannot hear the member for Scarborough West.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Good.

Mr. Speaker: No, I am entitled to hear him.

Mr. Lewis: Despite the fact they took our money from Ontario in profits, went to Guatemala and Indonesia and entered into consortia with the governments of those countries, participating in large measure in the exploitation of that resource -- an anathema here, a requirement there; despite the fact that even now Inco is engaged in large amounts of capital expenditure under your venture investment program, receiving, let me remind you, and not often referenced in this House, by virtue of a bill introduced into this Legislature on November 1, a 250 per cent writeoff against current income for every penny they put up by way of venture capital, so that if they give $2 million they write off $5 million from current income. All of this being done and not a penny of it designated for the Sudbury basin. And you talk of questions of public ownership.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They have spent hundreds of millions since 1970.

Mr. Lewis: Let me ask you, Mr. Speaker, and through you the Premier, what is wrong with owning the ores of Ontario?

Inco owns the ores. Would you allow Abitibi or Reed or Dorotar to own the trees? Do we not own the trees as Crown land and lease the resource for development? Why do we not work out a lease with Inco rather than letting them run roughshod over the economy of Ontario? No answer to that.

Mr. S. Smith: Pseudo nationalism.

Mr. Lewis: That is what we are talking about; the ownership of the ores of the province and the renegotiation of the terms. And why not? What is inconsistent in that, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Because it would not solve the problem and you know it.

Mr. Lewis: Sure it would solve the problem, which brings me to the finale I wanted to put to you.

We don’t understand, in this caucus, why you have been unable to come to grips with some very particular employment programs. We don’t know why you have not intervened to facilitate the suggestions made by the union which would have kept several hundred people on the job. We don’t know why you haven’t said to moo, “men must continue to be employed to replace the electric problems underground in the mines and to deal with the ventilation and safety problems in the mines.” We don’t know why you don’t insist on using some of those who might otherwise be laid off in a program to rehabilitate the environment of the Sudbury basin which Inco and Falconbridge together had desecrated. We don’t see why you cannot --

Mr. Speaker: The time has expired.

Mr. Lewis: -- say to that company, “you will lay off no one unless and until there are alternatives.” And that is why we have moved and stand by this motion of no confidence this afternoon.

The House divided on Mr. Germa’s motion, which was negatived on the following vote:





















Di Santo





































































Miller, F. S.


Newman, W.


Newman, B.


























Smith, S.


Smith, G. E.












Taylor, J. A.


Taylor, G.













Ayes 31; nays 73.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost.


Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, may I make three quick announcements? Tomorrow morning we meet at 10 o’clock, of course, and we’ll do the private members’ business when we get to orders of the day. There seemed to be some misunderstanding and I’d like to clear that up now. The standing committee on resources development will meet tomorrow morning after routine proceedings to take into consideration the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. The House leaders and whips will meet tomorrow morning at 8:30.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a question of the government House leader? Does the govern men intend to block the private member’s bill from the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Tune in at 1:45 tomorrow afternoon.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.