MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND RECREATION ACT (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND RECREATION ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 41, An Act to establish the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, prior to the dinner break I indicated my concerns about the creation of this ministry, because of the bureaucratic problems I foresaw in relation to its mandate to deal with tourism in the province, and the problem I see in the ministry in charge of tourism not having direct control over the distribution of loans for tourist development under the Ontario Development Corp., the Northern Ontario Development Corp. or the Eastern Ontario Development Corp.
It does not seem sensible that the ministry responsible for the development of tourism in the province does not have control of that area.
I want to talk now about the creation of this ministry as it relates to recreation and culture and the Wintario program. It seems to me there is going to be a great deal of duplication and confusion resulting from the division of recreation and culture in this reorganization. As my colleagues have pointed out, what is envisaged is a situation where field staff responsible for recreational and cultural programs supposedly work for two different ministries out of the same offices.
If there really is a division, it is obviously going to be blurred and very confusing to the public and to municipal officials who have the responsibility of dealing with the ministry to develop recreational and cultural programs in their own areas.
I do not think the ministers involved have given anything like an adequate explanation of what their particular responsibilities are going to be, especially relating to the operation of and distribution of funds for Wintario. I understand this minister is going to maintain control over the Ontario Lottery Foundation. The new Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey) is going to be responsible for the distribution of funds for cultural programs, and I understand libraries are going to be moved into that area as well.
It seems to me there is going to be a great deal of confusion. The joint memo from the two ministers explaining how this is going to operate is an example of the overlapping of jurisdiction and the confusion involved. If I were a less charitable individual, I might suggest the main reason for this reorganization is strictly to maintain a job in cabinet for this minister. I might think that, but I would not say it.
There does not seem to be any real philosophical or organizational reason to explain this division. As I said earlier, I think it makes sense for the tourist industry to have a ministry that speaks directly to its concerns, but in terms of the ODC tourist operation, this minister does not have complete control.
The new Ministry of Citizenship and Culture does not seem to have any particular reason for existing. It has not been demonstrated that the old Ministry of Culture and Recreation was not working; except, I suppose, for the hassle over the McMichael situation. Frankly, I do not think that was the responsibility of the ministry or of the organizational setup that we had then, but rather that it had to do more with the personalities involved in that particular situation.
I do not think the McMichael problem is in any way a justification for this reorganization; and we have not been told by the minister that this was in fact the reason. I am interested in knowing, and I hope the minister will be able to explain to us, the real reason so that we will all know why we are going to have an additional portfolio with an overlapping jurisdiction.
I will not prolong this, except to say if we find that the small municipalities of this province find it more difficult under this new bureaucratic setup to obtain the financial assistance they need for their recreational and cultural programs, we will all be the losers.
Once the problem of the guidelines for the Wintario program was sorted out after a long, difficult period of re-evaluation, a large number of communities in my riding, with the assistance of that program, now have recreational and cultural facilities which they would not have been able to finance on their own. They also have received a great deal of assistance from the field staff of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation. If this reorganization makes it more difficult for them to do that, it will be a tragedy in my view.
This may sound cynical but I cannot find a philosophical or organizational reason for this change. I can only conclude that it is a political move related to some problems which the minister has had in the past, and a face-saving device for the cabinet. I hope the minister can allay the concerns I have in those areas and is able to justify this reorganization and explain how he sees his ministry will operate to avoid confusion and overlapping with the Ministry of Industry and Trade and the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to add my views on Bill 41, An Act to establish the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. Perhaps I will be kinder to the minister than the previous speaker.
I believe it was in 1978 that my colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) was appointed chairman of the Liberal task force related to tourism in Ontario. I think the final report of that task force suggested that the then Ministry of Industry and Tourism should be two separate ministries or government agencies; that tourism played an important role in Ontario in providing recreation and, more important, added to the province's economy. I think it is one of the most promising areas today in generating additional revenue for the province.
8:10 p.m.
Perhaps under the new bill we will have a new drive and new directions put forward by the minister. I am sure he will work in the interests of all areas of the province.
I happen to represent an area that is rich in history: the town of Fort Erie, the city of Port Colborne and the township of Wainfleet. This year, on July 13, the town of Fort Erie will be marking its 125th birthday.
The old fort is perhaps one of the oldest landmarks in Ontario. Fort Erie was established by a stockade or a trading post at the mouth of the Niagara River where the old fort is located now. It was founded by the early French explorers and the Jesuit fathers of the day.
It has quite a history. We have the battle of Ridgeway. It is called the battle of Ridgeway down there but I notice as one leaves this building there is a plaque that tells us about the battle of Limeridge. That was when the Fenians thought they were going to take Canada by force.
I have often said the Fenian raids on Canada, particularly in the Ridgeway area and Bertie township, helped foster Confederation. I think it was one of the leading factors to bring about Confederation back in 1867.
The area has played an important part in the history of Ontario and early Canada. Fort Erie is noted as the gateway to Canada. The member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) talked about the Windsor tourist attractions. Many cars entering Fort Erie from Buffalo and the state of New York or Pennsylvania will travel on through to Detroit. There has always been a problem in designating part of the old Highway 3 as part of the Talbot Trail. I understand the ministry has now proclaimed the section from London or Chatham through to Fort Erie as the Talbot Trail. That has quite a history too. Some of the first settlers around the London district used it many years ago.
This will be of some interest to the minister, if he is interested in facts and figures. The Lieutenant Governor indicated in the throne speech that the government deserved much praise for the number of tourists that entered Canada during the past year. For example, the gateway to Canada, the Peace Bridge, carried 520,000 cars in 1979; in 1980, 831,000; in 1981, 957,000; 54,000 trucks in 1979, 53,000 in 1980, and 55,000 in 1981; 32,000 buses in 1979, and about the same figure in 1980 and 1981.
It does indicate that the flow of traffic still comes across the border at Fort Erie. Of course, in vehicles it is two-way traffic so we are looking at almost a million cars. It was up over the last two years in particular. I hear someone say, "Yes, the buck is there, isn't it? The reason is cheap gas." I am glad the minister is well informed on that.
The reason was we were dumping cheap gas at the time in the Fort Erie area and other ports of entry into Canada. It was a good deal for many Americans. If we had been on the bandwagon the last two or three years we could have had more dollars left here through proper advertising by the ministry to encourage visitors to spend a little more time here in Ontario.
Particularly if one is in the area around Buffalo, Niagara Falls, New York, Rochester, Pennsylvania and Ohio it is pretty close; you have another 150 miles from Fort Erie in the Niagara Peninsula. It has greater potential for tourism.
Not only the city of Niagara Falls but, as I mentioned before, the city of Port Colborne has perhaps one of the oldest landmarks in Canadian history, the Welland Canal. I believe it was 1832 when they rebuilt it and put in the early locks in the city of Port Colborne. Some of those sites are still there today, and they should be set aside as historic sites.
I know of cases where the municipality has already filled in land over the top of some parts of the old locks, and I suggest that what remains should be set aside as historic sites so future generations can see this great engineering achievement of early Canadian history. It has played an important role.
Wainfleet is another area that has many beaches. The area from Fort Erie up almost to the Grand River would have excellent beach facilities if they were developed. I often think of the background and history. The minister being a good Lutheran, I hope he can help the government keep that promise.
I recall the study done by Dr. Jackson of the geography department at Brock University in 1967. He did a study of recreation development on the Lake Erie shoreline and he was very critical of the lack of government interest in that area, particularly in developing some of the shoreline for public parks.
I have sent the minister the brochure on Sherkston Beaches, which is perhaps one of the last remaining private beaches in that area. It has about two miles of excellent beach shoreline that can accommodate thousands of people. It is one of the best private camps in Ontario.
Even in the brochure the government puts out, the Traveller's Encyclopaedia of Ontario, this name is not even mentioned. I know the advertising the province does in this particular area, but for some reason Sherkston Beaches is not mentioned. In the new camping guidelines put out by his ministry even the Talbot Trail is not mentioned at all.
Speaking of the brochure, it is an excellent book, but I suggest it is a little too large. It would be better if it were cut in half so one could put it in the glove compartment or some place handy so as not to lose track of it. As it is, it could be put in a briefcase or luggage. It could be a little thicker, but if it were a little shorter it would be easier to handle in an automobile and while travelling.
It is a good brochure, but it could be more elaborate in certain areas. I am talking about Erie riding again. Some areas are not mentioned there. It mentions provincial parks from, say, Dunnville west up to Haldimand and along the Lake Erie shoreline. I suggest more consideration should be given to the conservation parks in the area in something like this. It should include the whole Niagara district as one parcel of the tourist sector, then it could branch out and go further west up into the Kitchener-Waterloo area.
It is great country there in the fall. I know a number of bus tours from my riding go up to Kitchener-Waterloo and Elmira, particularly the farmers' market there. It is great. A number of people from my area like to travel to that area almost every year. I have visited it on a number of occasions myself, and I find it very pleasant to spend a day there.
In his report, Dr. Jackson criticizes the fact that there is not sufficient access to the public beaches, and he goes on to say in the conclusions and recommendations: "A scene of contrast and of conflict has been presented. There are many contrasts: between overcrowding during the few short summer months and relative emptiness over the rest of the year; between cottages of the affluent businessmen and the more humble seasonal abodes; between settings which are embellished by cottages and those which have become a disgrace to society."
8:20 p.m.
In the village of Crystal Beach, many of the cottages have been renovated and some of them have been replaced with beautiful homes, but there is not sufficient access to the lake. Back in the 1960s, this government promised there would be more public access to the beaches.
The minister should go down to that area where one just has road allowances. There are a number of people flocking over from Buffalo to spend an afternoon or a day here in Canada and spend a few dollars; with the local population trying to get out on a 66-foot road allowance, which is all there is now in the town of Fort Erie, there is not sufficient access to the lake.
The problem has existed for a number of years and is going to exist in the future because, as the population of the town grows, people want to get to the lake for recreation purposes -- for fishing, boating, water skiing and sailing. There is great potential in that area but there is a lack of public access.
I suggest to the minister that in the past the ministries responsible, the Department of Lands and Forests and the Ministry of Natural Resources, indicated to members of council this government would purchase land for public use where property was for sale, without expropriating it.
There is some property that lies east of the village of Crystal Beach in the hamlet of Ridgeway. It consists of about 75 acres with 800 feet of shoreline that has access to the lakefront and it is for sale. I have written to the Ministry of Natural Resources and the minister has indicated to me by letter there would be some money available through the parks assistance branch.
Of course, that is only 50 per cent and one has to go back to the municipality. The municipalities are facing constraints today so it is difficult for them to pick up $300,000. I suggested at one time it should be part of the Niagara Parks Commission. I think it would be a disgrace and shameful if it was used for development purposes.
This is the ministry's last chance to obtain any access to lakefront in the Fort Erie area if the minister is really serious about the tourists. A nine-hole golf course is included in the property and it is making money. The owners are finding it difficult, with high taxes and high interest rates, to finance the golf course.
I suggest to the minister, if he is interested in providing accommodation for tourists in Ontario, that he take a look at this area. There is money. He can get it through Wintario or other areas. I hope the minister will take a good look at this last chance to keep that promise of providing the area with a provincial park.
It has been mentioned there may be some confusion between tourism and recreation in the new portfolio the minister will be handling. I recall when I was on the standing committee on procedural affairs we had all the boards and commissions appear before the committee. We had members of the St. Lawrence Parks Commission and another parks commission and I think the conclusion of the members of the committee was that perhaps the parks system under the Ministry of Natural Resources should be removed and set up into parks systems across the province.
The ministry has the success of the St. Lawrence Parks Commission as an example. There is the St. Clair Parkway Commission. The money-maker is the Niagara Parks Commission, which should perhaps extend its boundaries around the Golden Horseshoe to take in provincial parks in the Haldimand-Norfolk area. I am thinking of Rock Point Provincial Park and Selkirk Provincial Park. It can go all the way to Windsor.
Perhaps in taking over the parks, he could set up a Lake Erie parks commission. There are many advantages for the ministry in doing that. Sometimes people dealing with the parks along the Lake Erie shoreline have to deal with a civil servant in the ministry in Toronto who may not quite understand the problems and issues facing these parks.
If the minister takes the three already established parks which are well received by the public, he could extend the park system around Lake Erie or even Lake Huron. There are a number of provincial parks there and if he could get interested people along that shoreline involved, I think they could be a great help to him at little cost. Many dedicated people in this area would be more than happy to be members of a parks commission and to share in some of the growth of Ontario.
That is a good avenue and the minister should be looking at it. If he cannot get the Niagara Parks Commission to go along the Golden Horseshoe from Lake Ontario to Dunnville, Selkirk and that area, he is missing a golden opportunity to make this one of the most attractive tourist sections of Ontario.
It is close to the heart of the largest American population and it is close to the city of Toronto. In fact, many people from Toronto are now heading for the peninsula on weekends instead of trying to beat the heavy traffic through Barrie to Georgian Bay. A trip of 85 or 100 miles to the peninsula can be more easily accommodated in a short weekend.
The minister should be looking at taking over all the provincial parks. He could do the same thing in the Lake Superior area. He could set up a parks commission there and in other areas throughout Ontario and let the local people have some say to help him develop these areas in the best interests of the local communities and the province as a whole.
He has a well established precedent that this is the area he should be developing.
There are other areas I could get into on this bill but we on this side do support the bill in principle. We hope he will at least take note of some of our comments. If he cannot include them in the bill this year, perhaps next year through regulations he could develop some of these parks in the province. There is great potential for doing so.
The high cost of gasoline in the province as it relates to our neighbours to the south who are paying 99 cents a gallon -- the equivalent of four litres here -- perhaps this area of taxation is scaring away a number of the tourists.
The matter of pollution has been mentioned. I heard on the radio tonight that the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) has approval from the National Energy Board to export energy from Nanticoke to the Pennsylvania utilities. One of the comments was that there was no recommendation that they would put in additional scrubbers to remove the ingredients which cause acid rain.
If the minister wants to continue destroying the Niagara Peninsula, he can continue to export that energy and not bring in some measures to reduce the sulphur dioxide that causes the acid rain to fall on the Niagara Peninsula, the Niagara River, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.
Perhaps not immediately, but as it gets into full production, it will have some serious impact on the number of tourists coming into the area and compound further the problems of the water quality within the Great Lakes basin around the Niagara Peninsula. If lakes are not safe for swimming and the river is not safe for boating, he will have problems.
However, we do support the bill in principle and if the minister wants to discuss the problem of the purchase of the park, I will be only too happy to walk over there and explain it to him in more detail.
8:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member for Sudbury East.
Mr. Renwick: The House leader of my party walks in and takes precedence over every other member.
Mr. Martel: I want to suggest to my friend the member for Riverdale that had he been here this afternoon --
Mr. MacDonald: I will arbitrate.
Mr. Martel: The member for York South will arbitrate.
I have a few comments I want to make to the minister. I might say to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) that the committee he appointed this afternoon is crazy; it has no statutory powers. That is just a little aside. The voluntary committee the minister appointed this afternoon has no statutory powers and it is a waste of time. The act does not apply to these voluntary committees. Throw it out. Under section 83 of the act, the minister appoints --
The Acting Speaker: The honourable member is speaking to Bill 41?
Mr. Martel: Let me get to the bill, Mr. Speaker. I have a few comments about the bill that I want to make.
This minister has a tough job. As my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) said this afternoon, if this government is allowed to perpetuate the system of emissions from Inco and if it continues to allow the abatement program to be put off, there is no hope of revitalizing the tourist industry in areas like the French River. I hope the minister is listening to me; I see him reading. Most of the lakes and rivers in that chain to the south and east of the Inco establishments are sterile now. If we look at the lakes in the Killarney Lake chain, we know there is not so much as an aquatic bug in any of those lakes, let alone fish.
In 1968, when Matt Dymond announced the superstack at Inco, I suppose I was the only person who opposed it. All the superstack has done is to get sulphur dioxide, which is acid rain, somewhat farther from Sudbury than was previously the case. This government fell flat on its face when it continued to allow Inco to do that. It is interesting that the government always did it when the House was not sitting. Usually in January, they would announce that Inco had another reprieve for a further two years to meet the abatement program that was established in 1972.
In 1975, when Inco bought ESB in the United States, they were supposed to build a new smelter in Sudbury. If there are problems east and south of Sudbury, they are a consequence of decisions made by this government from 1972 on. This minister will have a tough job altering those decisions now, because economic conditions are pretty bad. They were pretty good in 1973 when I think Inco made $315 million after taxes. When it came to a choice between a new plant or buying ESB, the government over there said, "Go ahead, buy ESB and don't put your new smelter in." Now we are in a financial bind and we cannot build a new smelter; so we have this devastation continuing. The report from Ottawa in 1974 said that at least $400 million worth of damage continues annually.
With the new superstack it has gone down into Muskoka. If the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) does not wake up soon, he will not have any tourist industry there, because tourists do not want to go where they cannot catch fish. Those of us from the Sudbury basin know that most of the lakes and rivers to the south and east are sterile because we have the prevailing westerly winds. That is a big job for this minister. He will have to convince his cabinet colleagues that those ad hoc policies in favour of their political friends will wipe out another industry; that probably will be the tourist industry. I suspect the area that is most affected at present is the Muskokas. If the Treasurer were to get on his horse, we might see some changes; or perhaps not.
There is already ample proof that the cause of that problem over the years has been Inco. It is interesting that so far, in all my years here, not one scientist in the Ministry of the Environment has ever conceded that the devastation in the Sudbury area has been caused by Inco and Falconbridge. I remember Dr. Clarke used to argue at the Ministry of Natural Resources estimates that we had no proof and therefore could not attribute blame to Inco and Falconbridge. I do not know of a scientist employed by this government who has yet been prepared to lay the blame at the door of these companies. Yet the emission is 750,000 tons or some more astronomical figure.
For years, this government knew what the statistics were, and hid them. It was only when my friend Falkowski managed to get his hands on the Dreisinger report, which showed the amount of effluent being dumped in the environment in the Sudbury area, that we were able to start to get a handle on it. But the government had known it for years. In fact, the Dreisinger study went on for some 15 years and no one knew except a few Pooh-Bahs in the Ministry of the Environment.
The minister must be serious about this matter. My friend the member for Algoma mentioned Ontario Hydro; I mention Inco, because I know of no source that contributes more to the problem. This government has never said to Inco, "You have to clean up." They have issued order after order every year since 1972, I think it was, and every year since 1972 Inco has been given an exemption; the government has said, "Well, do it until 1974"; and then until 1976 and then until 1978. I am no longer sure what the position is.
On a different topic I, like my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), am really disturbed that parks do not come under this ministry. I say that for several reasons. I recall going to the Ministry of Natural Resources -- I think the parliamentary assistant is here -- for the first time with respect to getting a park on Lake Wanapitei, where a reserve has been established since about 1971.
There is a great myth among the civil servants who work for this government that there is a lot of recreational land in northern Ontario. I am sure my friend the Minister of Labour knows as well as I do that there are not that many good swimming facilities for family recreation in northern Ontario. We have more lakes and rivers than one can shake a stick at but, unfortunately, very few of them have any beach area. Most of the terrain is stuff that was scoured out during the glacial age. We do not have the type of facilities we need for the people.
Lake Wanapitei is probably one of the nicest areas I have seen in northern Ontario, and we have managed to get a park there with some 1,300 acres reserved. Since 1971, the government has been plotting the depth and temperature of the lake and so on; it is all there. But this government is not prepared to put money in northern Ontario to develop parks because it has the misconception that since we have lots of lakes and rivers, we have lots of park facilities.
With regard to Lake Wanapitei and the park that I have been trying to get established in my own area, the Sudbury basin, we have probably one facility there. But the province will not build a road to it, because it would cost $640,000, and we have been trying to get it for years. The government will invest all kinds of money in southern Ontario for new parks but it will not do it in northern Ontario because there is a myth that since we have a lot of lakes and rivers we have a lot of park facilities. We simply do not.
8:40 p.m.
I hope this minister addresses that problem. I hope he has some input, because the facilities are not available. One can go fishing, one can do a lot of things, but day parks and overnight camping parks in northern Ontario are as scarce as chickens' teeth. This is one of the reasons, if the minister is going to be responsible for tourism, he should get into that sort of area. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) has copped out. He just gives continuing reasons why it cannot be done, always because there is a shortage of funds. But there are funds to continue to build parks down here in southern Ontario, because this is where the population is. So to hell with us up in the north. That is the story of northern Ontario.
I want to give a couple of other examples. I have never objected to having money pumped into the Royal Ontario Museum. I have never objected to money being put into all the facilities there are in Toronto, the Ontario Science Centre or whatever. But I can recall over the years suggesting to this government that in northern Ontario, because of the great distances involved in bringing students, this government should assist in establishing zoos and bird sanctuaries.
I recall trying to salvage two in my area, a zoo and a bird sanctuary. We had all kinds of money for the Royal Ontario Museum, the Toronto Symphony or whatever, but to try to salvage a small zoo where children could go was impossible. This government would not provide any funds for a zoo, nor would it provide money for a bird sanctuary, but it could find all kinds of money for the Royal Ontario Museum.
I resent that, as a northerner, because the cost of bringing youngsters to Toronto is prohibitive in many instances. Grade 8 pupils might get a trip, but even that is going down the tube because of the limits imposed now by the Ministry of Education on bringing youngsters to Toronto and providing overnight accommodation for two or three days. I know of a school that has just cancelled out. It had a trip arranged and was going to get the funding from the Ministry of Education, but the funding was not sufficient to come the long distance. Those just a little beyond the boundaries that are drawn do not get as much money.
I say to the government, rather than bringing our kids from the north down here, it should put some money into some things in the north that young people can go and see. I mentioned only two, the bird sanctuary that went down the tube and a small zoo that also went down the tube. I say that against the background of the money we have pumped into Metropolitan Toronto for all the activities a lot of kids in Toronto can use a subway token to go to see. It costs much more than a subway token in northern Ontario to come down here to the Royal Ontario Museum, Casa Loma and places like that. The government has to start to do those things in terms of tourism.
I was going to speak on the other bill on culture but did not get into it. The same thing applies there. When the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism went to France, it heard the French government say: "It is okay to have those things in Paris, but we have to be assured they are in other regions as well. We have to provide those amenities for the people who do not live in Paris." I am afraid this government has never taken that very seriously.
Mr. Foulds: Right. They are still living in Paris.
Mr. Martel: They think the whole hub of Ontario, in fact all of Ontario, is centred on Toronto. Getting the money to create these things, whether it be up in Oxford or other places, has not occurred yet. I hope the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey) does it, and I hope the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) also will make sure there are facilities beyond Toronto.
I see that it says in section 4 that one of the ministry's objectives is to "encourage and support the use of parks." I have travelled to both coasts twice with my children. I have not gone to the United States, as many cabinet ministers do, for my vacation; I like to stay in Canada. I have to tell the minister that in Quebec, for someone who is pulling a trailer, the parks are so far ahead of us that it is not even funny. When one goes to many parks in Ontario, pulling a trailer, they might have electricity, but they might not; they might have hot and cold water, but they might not. When one is travelling with three or four children, those are the least things one expects.
It was interesting in Quebec -- I went from Ottawa right up around the Gaspé -- that even in the private parks there were swimming pools, facilities for washing clothes and hot and cold water; they were much in advance of what we have. In our parks, the odd one has these facilities where one can hook up, but the majority do not.
If the minister wants to encourage family travel in Ontario, that is one of the things he must improve. Those facilities must be available for families; they should not have to travel another 150 miles to a park that has them. All of the parks should have those facilities to make family travel convenient, because there are not too many families with three or four children today who can afford to take vacations living at motels and hotels and buying meals, unless one happens to be a cabinet minister and well-heeled; the vast majority of us cannot do it.
My colleague the member for Algoma mentioned another thing that I want to raise. Where one pulls off the highways in Ontario, it is a disgrace. If one leaves Toronto and just goes to Sudbury, there are not two decent places to pull in with your family to get information. The washrooms are all outdoor privies, and the stench drives you away. In Quebec, they have nice paved driveways into all of those places, with running water and decent washroom facilities. We are so far behind them; I said this to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) a number of years ago, and it did not even sink in.
I want to tell the minister that for people who have gone north, the facilities for stopping for lunch and to wash up are just not there, although I can suggest a number of places one might stop. I see my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) shaking his head; he has a camp up in my area, and he knows that if you pull into any one of those places along that highway, it is a bloody disgrace. There is no water and, as I stated, there is an outdoor privy, the stench of which just drives you away. That's what we have for the travelling public.
What I say does not just apply from here to Sudbury. I travel frequently up to Thunder Bay, making that 600-mile trip, and the same applies there. It leaves so much to be desired that I do not know how the minister can really say he is encouraging tourism in this country with those sorts of facilities. I am not talking about facilities where one is going to buy a lot, but just about facilities to pull in and stop for an hour, have a sandwich and keep going. They are not even there. It is a disgrace.
I do not think it would cost that much to improve those facilities; but if they were improved, we would increase the number of people who would come in from the United States to make use of the facilities that are there and to enjoy the scenery and everything else we have to offer.
8:50 p.m.
The other thing I want to say to the minister relates to another of the ministry's objectives as stated in section 4; it is to "encourage and promote improvement in the standards of accommodation, facilities and services offered to the travelling and vacationing public."
I hope he gets into that field in a serious way. I have travelled in northern Ontario a good deal and, from my experience, the facilities for serving gas and the lunchroom and washroom facilities leave a good deal to be desired. One has to pick one's places based on some previous knowledge of travelling through that area to get facilities one really wants to go into. They are really limited.
I suggest to the minister that he has a big role in bringing facilities for food, washrooms and so on up to standard. If that is done, it will encourage a lot more people to come to this province to enjoy the outdoors.
The last point I want to make deals with another of the ministry's objectives, the one that says it shall "ensure that adequate opportunities are available to all residents of Ontario to pursue recreational, sports and fitness activities." I think there are a lot more facilities available in this province than we are prepared to make use of.
In most communities there are all kinds of facilities that are totally underused. When I look around my own area, most schools now have gyms that are not used beyond four or five o'clock. I do not think they are used on weekends. One sees all kinds of clubs trying to find facilities or promoting the raising of funds to expand facilities, but there are all kinds of facilities that are underused. One can go to just about any school today and find a gymnasium in it; but we do not use them, one has to get permission.
It is crazy that we have schools with facilities that are not used beyond five o'clock at night. We should be taking inventories of what is available in this province and pursuing the use of those facilities to the maximum for badminton, basketball, gymnastics and so on. Most of the facilities are available. I think they are underused.
One of our problems is that we put too much money into one sport. In northern Ontario, if one does not have an arena for hockey, one is out of luck. There are a lot of kids who do not want to play hockey. This government went part of the way a couple of years ago and did a study. It was by Dr. McPherson, I guess.
It was an excellent report, except they stopped at peewee hockey. If this government does not wake up soon, we will not have enough kids in arenas to use those facilities. We have rectified and improved hockey. I was at a hockey tournament recently in North Bay, and a father came to me and said: "I recognize you. I used to think you were crazy." I said, "You're not the first person who has accused me of that."
Mr. Mancini: He was right.
Mr. Martel: He might well be, but I guess it takes one to know one.
This father said to me: "Since we eliminated bodily contact in hockey up to the peewee level, it is a whole new ball game for these kids. They are skating, passing and developing skills we never saw up to the age level of 12."
Mr. Bradley: You haven't seen Sarnia's junior B team.
Mr. Nixon: That's the way we teach hockey in Brant.
Mr. Martel: I know what the former member for Sarnia did one night, and he got great reports in the press; I think he took a punch at someone, didn't he, Bob?
I still think this government has a responsibility to say there will be no hockey violence, but it does not have the courage to do it yet. I resent that, because nowhere would we allow someone to walk out into the middle of the street and pound someone else on the head with a hickory stick except in hockey.
Mr. Roy: Or in this place.
Mr. Martel: No. Even here we give verbal gibes, but we would not tolerate someone walking over and crushing someone else on the head with a piece of wood. What the hell! Are we crazy that we as parents and as adults allow kids to smash each other on the head with a piece of hickory? The government does not have the courage to say that we will not tolerate it any more.
The hockey statistics show that we are down to fewer than 450,000 kids because the kids do not want the pressure from the parents and the coaches to win. Most of the coaches think they are Red Kelly; they really do.
Interjection.
Mr. Martel: Oh yes. They think they are all going to the National Hockey League -- not the kids, the coaches. And we have not got the courage yet. This minister was trying -- I give him credit -- but he stopped it at peewee. They were supposed to take violence out of bantam hockey last year; but it is still there.
In my home town we did not have enough kids last year for a house league at any level. Why? Go out and talk to the kids, as I do. They do not want to get killed, and they do not want the pressure from their parents. Who can blame them? We are not even civilized. We sit in this House and allow it.
My friend the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Ramsay) sympathizes with my position, because he has been heavily involved in hockey over the years. I recall listening to him when he used to announce those games.
Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I didn't think you were that old, Elie.
Mr. Martel: I hope this minister has the courage in his new portfolio to say: "That's it. Until 16 there will be no fighting allowed, and there will be no violence tolerated in the game." We do not do it in any other sport; why are we prepared to allow it in hockey? I cannot impress enough on the minister the need to take that step. My friend the former Minister of Labour and I have gone to hockey games together and watched it.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: We have gotten into fights with each other.
Mr. Martel: Yes. It's crazy.
Mr. Martel: I probably go to at least 50 or 60 hockey games a winter. I have three sons who play hockey. And beyond peewee it is insanity. A friend of mine who is a former professional hockey player -- I will not mention his name -- told me recently, "We are going to kill a kid in midget yet, and that is when we are going to get serious." I know of a youngster in Pembroke -- and my friend knows the coach, Jimmy Ferralis -- who was paralysed from the waist down last year. Yet we are not prepared to say we will eliminate that.
Are we really civilized when we allow that mayhem to go on? I say we are not. What bothers me is that we do not have the courage to say: "No more. We will not tolerate it any more." We as adults have that responsibility. The kids are not there, because they are not prepared to tolerate it any more. They are moving into individual sports -- skiing, tennis, swimming -- because they have had enough, and we as a government and as a society are too stupid to say we have had enough.
I am fascinated now as I listen to Bobby Orr and Bobby Hull who have said, finally, "Look, the whole thing is insanity."
9 p.m.
Mr. Samis: Dave Schultz.
Mr. Martel: Even Dave Schultz. He is repentant.
I ask the minister, why are we prepared to allow it to continue? Do we not have the intestinal fortitude to say we have had enough? I think it is time. If we are going to foster and encourage recreation -- and this ministry is responsible for it -- I think it is time the minister went back and said: "You took it to peewee, next year we move it to midget."
If there are some people, like the former head of the league here in Toronto, who want to quit, we are better off without them. Society is better off without them. I do not know if any of the members watched any of the hockey games the other day; we still have difficulty coping with the Russians. They still beat our best because they play as a team. They do not have to kill.
Mr. Nixon: Without our man from Brantford, it would have been a wipe-out.
Mr. Martel: In fact, he lost the important face-off, did he not?
Mr. Nixon: He is the one who said so and you are the type who would pick it up.
Mr. Foulds: And they both show the scars.
Mr. Martel: Might as well.
I implore the minister to get involved in that area again, now that he is minister totally responsible, and move to eliminate it.
Tell those beggars out there who do not want it changed and who are going to quit, to leave. The boys in this province, and the young ladies who are now playing, would be better off without them, society would be better off without them. The day of national hockey is gone, I hope, and we are going to do it for sport and for the betterment and development of kids.
Let me just say I did not mean to go on at length on that but it is a topic --
Mr. Nixon: Go over it again.
Mr. Martel: You want me to go on some more? I can give you some more if you like; but I will not.
I would hope the minister would offer encouragement for activities beyond this thing we have in Canada that hockey is the only sport in the world.
Mr. Conway: What is this concept of "natural hockey"?
Mr. Martel: I never mentioned the words "natural hockey."
Mr. Foulds: National.
Mr. Martel: National.
Mr. Foulds: Clean out your ears.
Mr. Martel: You should take that trip.
I would hope we would offer encouragement far beyond hockey. I recall working with a friend of mine in trying to raise money for an arena. He had a daughter and he said, "What good is an arena to me?" Because we already had one in town. He said, "Why don't we develop other facilities?" But the town fathers thought it all had to be hockey. I think we have to start to encourage and foster other activities beyond figure skating and hockey.
I want to tell the minister, the point is being reached financially, both in figure skating and hockey, where young people are not going to be able to cope. I am not sure if the minister is aware that now a pair of hockey skates are about $150, that hockey sticks sell at $14 a stick and shin pads are up around $75 a pair.
It has reached a point where there are all kinds of youngsters who are not going to be able to play hockey simply because --
Mr. Nixon: You are making $50,000.
Mr. Martel: My kids are still there. Thank God my wife is working.
There are all kinds of youngsters who are going to be excluded from the game because of the cost of equipment.
The other thing, of course, with respect to hockey is that they have simply gone nuts with their tournaments. They are now taking kids out of school on Thursday to play somewhere 200 or 300 miles away on Thursday evening, then they are out all day Friday. And that is becoming a money-making gimmick. As a teacher, I find it a little bit offensive that we are taking kids and sending them to four and five hockey tournaments a year in order to make a buck for an arena. It is just too much.
As for the cost; I talked to a parent the other day whose cost for one son travelling to tournaments this year was 1,500 big ones. That has become a money-making venture that is shortly going to make the National Hockey League look like a piker in regard to the number of hockey tournaments that are going on. Many parents are being forced to take their kids off a travelling hockey team because they cannot afford four or five hockey tournaments in a winter. It is total insanity, and I, as a teacher, resent them taking kids out somewhere to spend two days away from school, four or five times a year, to play hockey. I think that should be examined.
Finally, I want to get back to my point. I hope the minister will encourage more than hockey in northern Ontario and in Ontario.
Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments, basically about the Ontario farm vacation program. Also, I would like to take exception to a few of the remarks made by my colleague, Mr. Martel, from Sudbury pertaining to the campgrounds in this province. I happen to feel we have some excellent campgrounds in Ontario. I think the problem with Mr. Martel is that he has been spoilt. If he were to travel into Wisconsin and stay in the wilderness campgrounds he would see what camping is really all about. Why does he need all types of special facilities when he is out camping? This spoils camping because it increases the cost.
Mr. Martel: If you want to be the last of the rugged individualists, be so.
Mr. J. M. Johnson: I think the NDP are spoilt. I would suggest the minister not pay any attention to Mr. Martel and his --
Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think the Speaker has ruled that members should not refer to each other personally, and I think he should refer to the member according to his riding. Therefore, I would like you to call the member --
The Acting Speaker: A very good point and I appreciate your bringing that to the attention of the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel.
Mr. J. M. Johnson: I reiterate that the member is spoilt.
I would like to make one further comment. My main theme tonight is simply to sell the Ontario farm vacation program. I have tried to promote this program for the last six and a half years and I am extremely disappointed with the amount of support I have received from all sides of the House.
Last fall I was in England and I talked to some of the people there regarding their program. It is embarrassing to mention the amount of money that is spent by Great Britain on its farm vacation program in Wales alone. It is a substantial amount, and I think the minister should check that. I have yet to receive any support from any member of the NDP caucus on this. One member in the Liberal Party does support it, the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins). He is the only member on the opposition side who supports the Ontario farm vacation program.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, when I worked for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, not only did I promote it but I also purchased one and had a great farm vacation. There was not one of those farms I visited that did not have a septic system, the absence of which the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) was talking about in terms of this government's parks.
Mr. J. M. Johnson: Last year there were 31 farms involved in this program, and this year there are 46. Many of them are in my riding and because of the support I have shown for this program --
Mr. Philip: All of them with septic systems. Not one without a septic system.
Mr. J. M. Johnson: They may have septic systems. I agree with the member for Etobicoke that they do require them.
9:10 p.m.
I would like to suggest that within a few hours' drive of my riding of Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, there are a potential 20 million to 40 million customers who could make use of a program such as the farm vacation program. It is the type of resource that does not use up any of our land or take away any natural resources. It brings money into the economy, into the municipality. It has a tremendous potential to provide employment. It gives us an opportunity to stimulate the economy at very nominal cost. There are many farmers who are interested in the program but they require some assistance from the ministry to co-ordinate their needs and the needs of the customers.
Prince Edward Island is extremely successful in this type of program. A year ago I attended a conference at St. Jacobs. The minister will be familiar with that, as it was in his home area. There were delegates from eight of the provinces, and they were extremely pleased with the results of this type of program.
As I mentioned, the program in Ontario has expanded from 31 to 46 farms but this is only touching base. We have the potential of 10 times this number. In Great Britain, there is a directory that has 700 or 800 pages of listings of farms in this type of program. There is something drastically wrong with Ontario if we do not get into a program such as this.
The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) has supported it to a limited degree but this falls within the jurisdiction of this minister, and I would implore him to look into it and see if there is not some potential that we can explore.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Essex South.
[Applause]
Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the applause from the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) --
Mr. McClellan: Tell us about the tomato festival.
Mr. Wrye: It is good when the deputy leader of their party recognizes quality.
Mr. Mancini: Absolutely. The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) wants to know about the tomato festival. We do not really have a tomato festival in Essex South, but if the member for Bellwoods would like to direct correspondence to the proper officials in Leamington, they might consider his proposal for a tomato festival; but he would have to come down and be the chief tomato.
I wish to make a few comments concerning Bill 41, An Act to establish the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. We have heard a lot from the New Democratic Party member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) about his feelings towards violence in hockey. He may or may not be aware one of the agencies the procedural affairs committee chose to review was the Hockey Ontario Development Committee. I expressed similar views to those expressed by the member for Sudbury East, although most of the committee members felt that the investment being made in hockey arenas and the sport itself was worthwhile because of the huge numbers of children and young people involved. The members mentioned that the number was well over 450,000.
Now that the point has been raised, it is something that possibly the Legislature has to look at more seriously. We can remember some time ago, when, with quite a bit of fanfare, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) of this province got involved in a hockey dispute which erupted into quite a bit of violent activity on the ice. If my memory serves me correctly, he had some charges pressed against certain hockey players. That was when the Attorney General was looking for headlines, and after the initial splash in the Toronto media, we heard very little more about what the government intended to do about hockey violence.
If this minister feels it is within his jurisdiction to make a move in that direction, he should feel secure that there are many members of the Legislature who abhor the violent nature of hockey. Frankly, I am not a big hockey fan. I really do not go to hockey games.
Mr. Stokes: You are a gymnast, aren't you?
Mr. Mancini: Yes. I am a former gymnast and there is very little violence in gymnastics.
Mr. Ruston: That's right. The member for Windsor-Walkerville is a great one for that.
Mr. Mancini: You are right and I just want --
Interjection.
Mr. Mancini: Yes, if you slipped on one of those bars, it could be very violent. I will vouch for that.
Mr. Ruston: The minister agrees with that.
Mr. Mancini: I will vouch for that and we had many a close call, Mr. Speaker. Anyway, I think the minister should know that there are many members of the House who are willing to speak out on the violence in hockey and who would be willing to take measures publicly to support whatever positive action he wished to take.
I cannot recall all of the recommendations that the procedural affairs committee made concerning the Hockey Ontario Development Committee but we certainly did ask them to review their purpose and asked what they planned to do with the considerable grant the Ontario government had bestowed upon them. I believe the present Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) responded to our committee saying that had already taken place. Enough about the hockey violence.
I would like to make several points to the minister as he is undertaking his new role in this new ministry. It is an opportunity for a new start in this field of tourism and recreation. I want the minister to know that my good friend and colleague the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) and I met with the Essex County Hotel-Motel Association after Christmas.
Mr. Samis: Where was the meeting?
Mr. Mancini: I believe we met in St. Joachim at the Country Boy Tavern --
Mr. Ruston: A great place for meals.
Mr. Mancini: Yes, sir. It was a very nice meeting at a very nice establishment, and these people who are in the business of offering the tourists their facilities and hospitality are very concerned about the policies of the Ontario government.
They expressed great regret that the government decided to reimpose the seven per cent tax on hotel rooms. They wanted the government to know that this certainly was not what the industry thought was needed at the present time and it certainly was not going to help to draw new tourists to Ontario or, because of the extra costs involved, encourage people to become repeat tourists. Seven per cent may not seem like a lot but, together with the recent increases in the price of gasoline, thanks to the energy pact signed by Ottawa and Alberta and to the Ontario provincial government's 20 per cent ad valorem tax --
Mr. Ruston: It's shameful.
Mr. Mancini: Yes, it is shameful. The member for Essex North is correct.
Mr. Ruston: Nine cents a gallon increase in one year.
Mr. Mancini: It just compounds the cost to the traveller, so the Essex County Hotel and Motel Association wanted to register their strong opposition to the reimposition of that tax.
Further, they felt the 10 per cent tax on meals costing over $6 is really out of touch with what is going on out there in the food industry and with the prices of meals today. They recommended several alternatives. One, that the government lower the tax to three or four per cent and tax all food, whether it be a $1 or $2. Another suggestion they made was that the $6 minimum be raised to at least $10. It has been a considerable amount of time since the minimum for the amount of food that could be bought without tax was raised. These are things which are of concern to the people in the business of trying to provide the tourists with places to stay and with hospitality.
9:20 p.m.
Since I am on the subject of food I want to say that this organization also mentioned their interest in having the privilege of serving liquor before 12 noon. While I support the government's move in that direction, I find the timing curious. Members will recall that just before Christmas the Attorney General was trying to pass his "almost drunk" law which would have permitted the police to remove drivers suspected of drinking and have them leave their cars at the curbside. While the Attorney General was getting big headlines and credit for trying to save the public from drinking drivers, his government was extending drinking hours. I find that somewhat hypocritical.
Mr. Conway: Ban the bars.
Mr. Mancini: Yes. If they were really as concerned as much as the Attorney General pretends, they probably would not have extended the drinking hours. But that is typical of just about everything the Attorney General does, including what he did about hockey violence.
The Acting Speaker: Are we on Bill 41?
Mr. Mancini: Yes; that is correct.
That is why he has very little credibility left with the opposition members.
In this great city we have the Toronto Blue Jays baseball club.
Mr. Samis: Prohibition park.
Mr. Mancini: Yes, they play at prohibition park. They are a tremendous tourist attraction and I think it is shameful not to allow beer to be sold in the ball park.
I want to tell the Minister of Tourism and Recreation that his government allows alcohol to be served in bowling alleys. It is true that they try to set up a sort of dining area but some bowling alleys provide only a minimal division between the two areas. Many young people go bowling, yet beer and liquor can be sold in these establishments. The government allows people to go to the local pubs and watch Ample Annie and Mr. Tease do their thing and allows them to have beer or a glass of wine.
Mr. McClellan: You should go to the Tory caucus room.
Mr. Mancini: I do not know; I have never been in the Tory caucus room.
Mr. McClellan: I have seen booze in there.
Mr. Mancini: My friend, the member for Bellwoods says he has seen booze in the Tory caucus room, so there you go, Mr. Speaker.
My point is, some people would consider Mr. Tease and Ample Annie a type of recreation. Why does the government allow liquor and beer to be sold in those establishments with that kind of recreation, and not where one of the oldest sports in North America is played? It is a national pastime. People should be able to have a glass of beer while they are watching our Blue Jays --
An hon. member: Lose.
Mr. Mancini: -- win some and lose others. I would hope that if the minister has any influence in this area, he could speak to my friend, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), who is in charge of prohibition park, so that he might take steps in that direction.
I would like also to touch on the service stations between Windsor and Toronto. As a person who drives between Windsor and Toronto on a fairly regular basis, I have to tell the members the service and food provided and the prices charged are awful.
Mr. McClellan: They're called pit stops.
Mr. Mancini: Some of those places are really slop houses and I am not afraid to put that on the record.
For our first wedding anniversary, my wife and I drove to New Brunswick. We went through Massachusetts and were very impressed with the quality of the food at the service stations, the prices and the whole nature of service stations providing these facilities to tourists. However, before we entered Massachusetts, we had to drive through New York and I want to say to the minister our service stations are comparable to many of the ones we saw in New York, just slop houses.
Mr. McClellan: How do you get a franchise on the 401?
Mr. Wrye: The worst food gets it.
Mr. Conway: Reuben, are you running slop houses?
Mr. Mancini: If I am correct, service stations have an agreement with Ontario and they need the ministry's permission to renegotiate their leases.
Mr. McClellan: You get a slop house permit.
Mr. Mancini: The member for Sudbury East had the minister's attention for about an hour. I would like it now.
Mr. Martel: I am talking to my friend the minister.
Mr. Mancini: I want his attention, too.
If the minister was a tourist from Canton, Ohio, driving through Detroit and Windsor on his way to Toronto on Highway 401, what would be his impression of Ontario? If he drove into these service centres, he would find that the price of gasoline is eight to 10 cents a gallon higher; and in litres it is even more. Why are they allowed to charge so much more for gasoline? Why does the minister allow that if he has an agreement with these service centres? Why does he allow them to keep their washrooms in a manner that is not up to today's standards? Why does he not have them put in place proper restaurant facilities and at least charge reasonable prices?
These are things the Minister of Tourism and Recreation should be vitally interested in. Highway 401 is heavily travelled from Windsor to Toronto, especially by our American friends from the Michigan and Ohio areas. They are within a day's driving distance of Toronto. If we want people to drive from Ohio and Windsor to visit Toronto and then go to Canada's Wonderland, we will have to clean up our act on Highway 401.
The minister may not be aware of this but, before the former Minister of Industry and Tourism was moved to the Ministry of Health, he gave his lengthy view of what Windsor and Essex county could do to improve their tourism position. I do not know what the government has done to assist Windsor and Essex county; probably nothing. We have a tourism bureau which I believe is funded to promote tourism but in my view, because of the market we are able to attract, we need more provincial government involvement.
The old Ministry of Culture and Recreation has an office in Windsor. I do not know if it has any liaison with the Windsor-Essex County Development Commission. If it does not, it should be more in contact with these people who are interested in drawing tourists to Windsor and Essex county. The minister would be surprised at the number of good eating and sleeping establishments as well as other types of entertainment such as lounges, etc., that we have in our area and he would be surprised by the great historical nature of Windsor and Essex county.
9:30 p.m.
In that regard I want to bring to his attention the fact that I have been trying now for almost three years to get Highway 18 from Windsor to Amherstburg signed as the Sauk Trail. I would like to read to the minister from the journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, July 1936.
Mr. Renwick: Did you say 1936?
Mr. Mancini: Yes, 1936. The member is thinking back and saying, as Frank Sinatra used to say, "That was a very good year."
Mr. Renwick: That was the year I was elected.
Mr. Mancini: It was a very good year then.
On page 121 of the journal, in an article entitled The Other End of the Great Sauk Trail, written by Harry L. Spooner -- if there are any historians in the House, they will really appreciate this -- it says and I quote: "One of the oldest thoroughfares in the United States, and quite likely the oldest one in Illinois, is what is known as the Great Sauk Trail, or the Sauk and Fox Trail. Starting at the mouth" --
Mr. Wrye: Foxtrot.
Mr. Ruston: They used to call it a foxtrot when I was a young fellow. That was a dance.
Mr. Cassidy: Give him the Sam Cureatz award for irrelevancy.
Mr. Mancini: The former leader of the NDP said this is irrelevant, but he knows very little of the historical nature of Essex county. He knows very little about the Sauk Indians who used to travel from that part of the United States and make their way down through Michigan and across Detroit into Windsor and down to Amherstburg and receive gifts from the British, who were assisted by these Indians during the War of 1812 against the Americans. This is a debate on the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, and a very important subject to the minister, I am sure.
Before I was so rudely interrupted by the former leader of the NDP, I was quoting from the journal of The Illinois State Historical Society: "One of the oldest thoroughfares in the United States, and quite likely the oldest one in Illinois, is what is known as the Great Sauk Trail, or the Sauk and Fox Trail. Starting at the mouth of the Rock River, at its confluence with the Mississippi, it ran up the south bank of the Rock for a short distance, then took a southeasterly course across central Henry and Bureau counties, touched the old Indian village of Kaskaskia, the modern Utica, crossed the Fox River near Ottawa, ran up the north bank of the Illinois through Morris, crossed Des Plaines near Joliet, went east through the Chicago Heights, crossed the Illinois-Indiana state line at Dyer, continued east through Valparaiso and then took a northeasterly course through Rolling Prairie and LaPorte, crossed the St. Joseph River near Niles and continued east and north through Montville, Sturgis, Coldwater, Jonesville, Clinton, Ypsilanti to Detroit, where it crossed the Detroit River and followed down its bank 18 miles to the old village of Amherstburg at its mouth."
That is my home town of Amherstburg, for the benefit of the former leader of the NDP.
On page 122 it states, "This custom of giving presents to the Indians had continued from the first British occupation of Canada."
The Deputy Speaker: I want to bring to the member's attention that he is coming very close to that award.
Mr. Mancini: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker?
The Deputy Speaker: The member is coming very close to not centering on the topic of debate this evening.
Mr. Mancini: No, Mr. Speaker, you are way off on this, because what I am trying to do is inform the minister that we have a very important historic road in Essex county and that his government will not properly sign this road.
He is the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and we want to increase the number of tourists who come to Essex county and show them we have historic sites which are very important to the history of our country, and that is why this background information is being provided. No one in the New Democratic Party realized, except the member for Riverdale, that --
Mr. Stokes: I want to know why they blew up the toll gate.
Mr. Mancini: I do not know why they blew up the toll gate. Anyway, the Sauk Trail is important because the Sauk Indians travelled all the way from Illinois to Amherstburg and went over to Bois Blanc Island, which is now Bob-Lo, and received gifts from the British thanking the Indians for their assistance in the War of 1812. If it had not been for the assistance of the Indians, Essex county and part of Ontario would today be part of the United States.
Mr. Stokes: We have been abusing the Indians ever since.
Mr. Mancini: That's right, and we should all be embarrassed about that.
I want to say to the minister, let us get the road signed properly. There is adequate historical documentation to prove its significance. All the municipalities in the area sent resolutions long ago that the road should be signed. Let us get the road signed and over with.
I want to talk about the Ontario Development Corp.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: I am dumfounded.
Mr. Mancini: I want to talk about the Ontario Development Corp. as it relates to the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. I do not know how many applications they have received at the ODC for tourist-type projects -- by that I mean motels, marinas, amusement parks, etc. -- but I want to get it on the record that a couple of years ago Bob-Lo Island, which is an amusement park situated in the middle of the Detroit River on the Canadian side, was in financial trouble.
Although in the long run the Ontario Development Corp. did come through with a $500,000 loan guarantee, it certainly was late and it certainly was not very much. We almost lost one of the best tourist attractions we have in southwestern Ontario. I hope the company is now back on its feet and will be able to succeed.
Mr. Gillies: It is still there and making a profit.
Mr. Mancini: No, it is not making a profit, but it is still there. The reason I am bringing this up is that sometimes, in certain instances, I see not very much enthusiasm at the ODC for supporting the type of tourist facilities we need in Windsor and Essex county.
The towns of Amherstburg, Leamington and, to some extent, the village of Wheatley are in negotiations right now with different agencies of the government to build boating facilities, a marina, in these areas. Unless we are able to accomplish that we will be at least 50 years behind the rest of the province in marina facilities.
9:40 p.m.
Essex county is surrounded by water. We are only a couple of hours' boat ride from Ohio, and very close to Detroit, St. Clair Shores, Mount Clemens and that particular part of Michigan where there is a tremendous number of boats. One can go from Amherstburg to the American side and find marinas almost everywhere with boats of all sizes and shapes. People from all over the Great Lakes area stay at these marinas.
We do not see that in Essex county because we do not have such facilities; and the municipalities or the entrepreneurs will not put those facilities in place without adequate assistance from the provincial government.
The Board of Industrial Leadership and Development proposals allow for some $20 million over five years for the building of marinas. We want to make darned sure -- and this should be one of the things the minister would wish to have done in his term of office -- that we get adequate marina space in the Essex county area.
I also want to refer to the famous Jack Miner bird sanctuary in the Kingsville area.
Mr. Newman: It is the most outstanding bird sanctuary in the world.
Mr. Mancini: As my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville says, it is the most outstanding bird sanctuary in the world. I know some small assistance is provided by the government, I think in the range of $2,000. That facility should be highly promoted by the government but it is not.
I do not know whether the minister's plans for his ministry include an inventory of the tourist sites available in Essex county. In Amherstburg, for example, we have the North American Black Museum. If the minister gets the chance to visit the Windsor area, we would really like to escort him through that museum.
The underground railroad brought the slaves from the United States through Detroit and into Essex county and as far as Chatham. Many of those people settled in the Amherstburg area, and they have built a superb museum. It would really be worth the minister's while to pay it a visit so that he could speak about it on his trips across the province.
There is also Point Pelee National Park, which is a bird sanctuary just outside Leamington in my riding. About three or four weeks ago I read in the Windsor Star that hundreds of bird watchers from across Ontario and various of the United States had already visited Point Pelee this spring.
I could speak for another hour about the different historic sites in my riding, but the point I am trying to make is that in order for the minister to have a proper tourism policy he has to know what is available in the province; he has to know what he has to promote. I would hope he would have his regional offices take an inventory of what would be of interest to tourists and establish what should be done to promote those areas.
It is not sufficient for members to rise in their places and bring these points of interest to the minister's attention. There is no way the minister is going to remember all of this. There is no way he is going to have time to go over Hansard and reread the speeches given by all the members. But if he had a policy in place which would help identify these sites and these modern tourist facilities which are available and which would interest people from other parts of Canada and the United States, that would be a step forward.
I will conclude by saying I know the minister will undertake his job in this new ministry with a lot of enthusiasm. This is a good opportunity to make a fresh start in the tourism field, and I wish him all the best of luck.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my remarks as usual will be brief. I want to speak to one special and particular problem of concern to me. I need not talk of my riding of Riverdale, stretching as it does from the Don River to Coxwell Avenue and from the lake to the Danforth and north of the Danforth to the borders of East York, because that is a magnet for the tourists who come to the Metropolitan Toronto area.
Our problem is how to cope with the influx of tourists. We have boating, fishing and swimming in the Don River. We have sport fishing at the outlet of the Hearn generating plant. We have the spit where they are dumping PCBs regularly in order to destroy the ornithological site at the end of the spit. We have most of the attractions, including, of course, an international cuisine which is unequalled in any part of Massachusetts or northern Ontario.
So I am speaking in a totally disinterested way when I talk about the question of tourism. I have only one thought at a time to put into the debate on this bill. I have been extremely concerned about the lack of convention capacity in areas outside Metropolitan Toronto. I think it is quite inconceivable that in a province like Ontario, for a political party such as the New Democratic Party, the Liberal or the Conservative parties -- using political conventions only as an example -- there can be only one place in the province that can accommodate 2,000 or 3,000 people for three days.
I am saying to the minister, not in criticism but purely as a suggestion, there must be some way. One can focus upon any number of centres in Ontario and say this centre has a capacity to deal with a convention of 250 to 350, 350 to 500, 500 to 750, and up to somewhat larger conventions.
I am not talking about international conventions. There are an immense number of conventions of moderate size that can only be held at present in Metropolitan Toronto because there is a total incapacity in the government to co-ordinate the three fundamentals of a convention to be held elsewhere. The three fundamentals are accommodation, transportation and recreation. Those are the areas people are interested in when they are going to select a site for a convention.
I think it would be quite possible for this ministry to develop a policy that would say to people: "We the government will co-ordinate" -- I am not talking about an expenditure of money -- "the transportation, accommodation and recreational arrangements for a convention to be held in Thunder Bay of 1,500 to 2,000 people for three days, because we want you to come to that part of the province and we want you to spend some time there."
It is not a question of building massive hotels to accommodate that kind of convention; it is a question of whether the government has the capacity to focus on the problem.
9:50 p.m.
When a party leadership convention has to be held in due course, our party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party will have to say we can hold it only in Toronto. If our party simply wanted to arrange a provincial council convention, which might number a maximum 350 to 400 people, I am very much concerned that we cannot say to the government of Ontario: "Next September or October we would like to hold our provincial council meeting in such and such a place in the province. What are the co-ordinated arrangements that can be made for travel, accommodation, recreation and for the facilities necessary for conventions?"
If we persist in saying that conventions can be held only in Toronto we are doing a disservice to wide parts of the province that have the capacity, with the co-ordination, to meet those demands. I speak from no great knowledge of conventions, but most of them are internal conventions of one kind or another that are held weekly that people want to hold through the province but most of them of any size have perforce to be held in Toronto.
Will the minister do something to co-ordinate those activities so that medium-sized conventions of all kinds could be held in Windsor, London, Ottawa, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Timmins -- wherever the arrangements are necessary? The answer is always the same. There are not adequate transportation facilities to get people in and out of those centres, there is not sufficient accommodation to house the people when they are there and the facilities for meeting purposes are limited.
I happen to think this is the ministry that can say that those are not insurmountable problems, that we can meet the demands, that we can meet the needs, saying: "We want you to come to Thunder Bay, to Sudbury, to London, to Ottawa, to Cornwall, to Kingston, because we can co-ordinate for you a convention of 300, 500, 750, 1,500 people, whatever the numbers are.
"If you will get in touch with us, we will see to it that the transportation, accommodation and the facility arrangements are co-ordinated with all of the people who would be interested in developing that kind of co-ordination in those centres on a local basis and carrying out a concerted plan to provide the facilities."
We are missing out on an immense possibility to diversify the money that is spent, the interests of various parts of the province and the way in which people would respond to that kind of activity. I throw it into the pot for what it is worth. I do not expect it will be suddenly picked up, but I think it is a serious vacuum in the field of tourism that there is such a focus upon Metropolitan Toronto and such a lack of capacity to co-ordinate the ability to meet in many other places.
I would like to include even the city of Sarnia. A lot of people would be prepared to go there. It would need a concerted effort. It would need the sense to say that a lot of people would be quite prepared to stay in private accommodation for three or four days as part of solving the accommodation problem. With the educational facilities and other facilities in the city and, I am quite certain, with the educational and other facilities in most cities of this province, one can easily arrange for the facilities for meetings to be held.
One can certainly co-ordinate the transportation arrangements so people can leave from wherever they are in the province on a Friday, attend a convention on Friday evening, Saturday and Sunday and be home in time to go to work on Monday. For those conventions where the time is not so important in the sense of weekends, one should be able to arrange Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, so there is that capacity to get in and out of places in Ontario in a way that would be most attractive and beneficial to those communities. It certainly would be a treat for many people who have to attend conventions to be able to go somewhere other than a metropolitan area.
I make the suggestion because I think it is a travesty that, in a province with the numbers of centres of the size we have, this ministry does not take it upon itself to diversify the convention facilities in the way I have tried to outline in a very amateurish way. I trust it would be a goal and an objective of this ministry to try to develop that kind of diversified convention capacity of which I have spoken.
Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a lot of pleasure to rise and speak about the establishment of the new Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. I think a lot of good points have been made by all members of the House. I would just like to add a few points on behalf of my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk and as a member from southern Ontario.
The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) made some good suggestions, such as the conventions being moved around Ontario. I think the minister is taking on a big responsibility in providing and utilizing a ministry that means so much to Ontario. By co-ordinating it properly, he can add so much not only to the people of Ontario but also for tourists coming into Ontario.
Maybe his ministry could help, perhaps using the Dash aircraft we had the opportunity of using for the trip put together by the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché). We had an opportunity to look at the north. By using that type of aircraft and setting up and co-ordinating tours, we could really sell Ontario, because we have so much to offer, whether it is in southern, northern, eastern Ontario or wherever, even down in Calabogie. That name always fascinated me. It is one of the finest skiing areas in Ontario. It has some of the finest runs, but it needs some facilities to match the quality of the outdoor life it has. I think the minister and his ministry are within a position to do that now.
I think the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) indicated that we may be spending much money on arenas. I know one arena in my own riding that could use a new facility, the one at Port Dover. There are many good facilities. Maybe they should be making improvements for other recreational purposes by developing better attractions and utilizing some of that funding and some of the profits from tourism by putting it back, creating jobs and improving facilities.
I would like to point out we have the Talbot Trail, which was only established last year and runs from Windsor to Fort Erie. It was supported by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Culture and Recreation. I think that could be tied into a tour. As we put out our encyclopaedia, I would like to see it include one travelling area perhaps tied in, as my colleague the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) has indicated, with the Niagara Parks Commission and the St. Clair Parkway Commission to make a complete route.
10 p.m.
The member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) indicated that we have a tremendous population to draw on from south of the border, something like 50 million people who are within a day's drive from Toronto. We have so much to offer.
An example in my own riding is the Grand River. Only this past week, a report came out in our Hamilton Spectator indicating it is one of the finest natural fishing areas in Ontario. It is close to the urban centres of Hamilton and Toronto. The Grand River is in need of a new dam at the town of Dunnville.
Port Maitland has tremendous potential as far as marinas and a deep sea port are concerned. As a matter of fact, there are plans afoot now to develop that, but it is going to take funding and it is going to take some leadership on behalf of this ministry. I hope the minister will see fit to contribute to projects of that type, such as the dam and fish ladder and a lock system. Perhaps some time we will even be able to navigate that stream to Brantford. I see the member is in his seat tonight. That would be a distance of perhaps 40 to 45 miles.
The dam is completed at Caledonia in stages that could well be created as a highway as it once was from 1830 to about 1865, when the railway and the plank road had developed from Hamilton to Port Dover. It has tremendous attraction. For the length of shoreline we are talking about along Lake Erie, there is certainly potential for much more improvement of facilities.
There is another example in my riding. From Dunnville to Port Dover, there is Nanticoke Creek and Sandusk Creek. Sandusk Creek at present is a natural marina, accommodating approximately 100 slips. There is potential at that harbour for several hundred more. Because of the erosion of the creek mouth, the water depth is not adequate and causes considerable problems getting in and out.
The member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) pointed out to me that he has a similar problem with the Ruscon, I believe it is, on Lake St. Clair where there is a marina with 300 or 400 slips. Within the three-foot water level, it is still thin. It is almost an impossibility for the individual to maintain that slip, but with some help from the ministry perhaps it would be possible.
As a matter of fact, I know the one at Sandusk could be improved by proper rocking. We are trying to work out a deal now to utilize the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program, as has been done by Sarnia. The member for that riding put out a press release not long ago.
I would like to point out some activities. Port Dover has a natural harbour. Turkey Point has a natural harbour. There is Port Rowan at the entrance to Long Point. We have been in touch with the minister through the chamber of commerce of Port Rowan indicating its desire to have a tourist booth or centre at that location.
Port Rowan is 25 miles from any major municipality of any consequence and yet we have the provincial park, the Long Point Conservation Area at Backus, a natural bird-watching site at the Backus conservation area. We sponsored bird watching last year at 25 cents a bird, and my wife indicated the other day that she had earned $25. She did not think she would see that many types of birds, but that adds up to 100 birds. It is an attraction where they have the Port Royal Wildlife Sanctuary on the old Lee Brown property, which covers several hundred acres and which is owned by the Long Point Region Conservation Authority; and there are geese, wild ducks and swans there year-round. It is a natural stopping place as is Jack Miner's Sanctuary down at the other end of the lake.
We do not have any accommodation in Port Rowan, such as motels or living accommodations. There is a hotel there, but it has not been developed as an accommodation for overnight lodgers. There are plenty of park facilities and camping facilities, but we certainly could use some accommodations such as motels or that type of service. As a matter of fact, the chamber of commerce is trying to promote the area so that the downtown area and the business section can stay alive and grow. It certainly could use some support from the ministry, and I hope it sees fit to do that.
I would like to point out too that we have a range of activities which begin in June in Dunnville. There is a fishing derby for carp in June -- the name escapes me right now; oh yes, the Mud Cat Festival -- which is supported by all the organizations in Dunnville. From there, we move up the lake to Port Dover, where they have the Lighthouse Festival, which was established only three years ago. They put on plays from June 12 until the end of the summer season. I know that the minister, through the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, has supported this before, and I hope he will continue to do so. If anybody has the opportunity, it is certainly worthwhile to spend a night there. They are really professional plays, put on in the old town hall, and they have developed a fantastic attraction.
Port Dover was an area of Ontario that at one time was really moving because American tourists had access to it, but with the coming of the Queen Elizabeth Way the traffic now detours from Fort Erie around by Hamilton on to Highway 401 and, consequently, we have lost a lot of trade from that particular area.
It is going to take the use of the Talbot Trail, promoting the activities we do have along that particular stretch and the parks we have. I think it is just a natural, and it cannot do anything but grow.
Turkey Point has a fishing derby, which is held in July, and Long Point Bay has tremendous freshwater fishing, probably some of the best freshwater fishing anywhere in the world. In August, Port Rowan has the Tomatofest, and they are trying to promote their municipality.
From there on one goes up to Port Burwell, but on the way you see another natural phenomenon, the sand hills. They have been there for generations, rising up to several hundred feet above the shores of Lake Erie, and they are just another attraction that can be utilized to provide so much entertainment for so many people in Ontario.
There is one other fishing event that takes place in the riding. It is winter fishing at St. Williams, ice fishing for perch. They bring out their fish huts in the winter time as soon as the bay freezes over, and there are thousands of huts. Again, there is some fine fishing for anyone, it is accessible and it provides a lot of recreation.
We have a wide variety of entertainment for summer tourists. There are two final activities that take place. The Cayuga Speedway is a three-quarter-mile track where they put on summer races. Last year they were not able to do it. They had to give up because of financial restraints; they could not get sponsors. But it is one of the finest speedway tracks in all of North America for that length of track. I think the minister could play a role in giving some assistance in advertising that.
10:10 p.m.
The other track is one they call the Cayuga drag strip. The Cayuga drag strip is a straight track where they have a different type of racing: it is high-speed racing, starting from zero. It attracts some of the finest racers from around North America and provides much employment to the area. It provides business for our motels and their facilities, the Explorer Inn and various motels in all the municipalities, and contributes much to our economy. Again, the minister could be of some assistance by providing funding to promote this, because the costs are high, the overhead is high and the provincial and recreation taxes are high. To keep these alive, we have to be aware of this and try to give them some assistance.
In summing up, there are two things I am concerned about. One of them is to make sure that the area is promoted through the ministry in terms of package deals; they could be generated out of Toronto, in connection with the Niagara Parks Commission. The other is that the Talbot Trail could be added to the schedule under the direction of the ministry, as is the Niagara Parks Act, the St. Clair Parkway Commission Act and the St. Lawrence Parks Commission Act. That should be given consideration.
My final point is that we might put our area on a map; it is not in the encyclopaedia, although the Simcoe-Port Dover area is designated. Now that we have the new town of Townsend and the industrial park at Nanticoke, I think it should be recognized and indicated in the mapping system so that all the attractions in that part of Ontario are made well known both to everyone coming into the area and to Ontario residents.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: I know this bill is causing great concern and interest to all members of the Legislature, and the new minister is listening very attentively. We would now like to listen to the member for Nickel Belt.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, thank God for your support in this chamber. Otherwise, I would feel very isolated.
I want to speak tonight on behalf of all the tourist operators but, more important, I want to speak about the tourist potential of Shining Tree, Sultan, Ramsay and Foleyet --
Mr. Piché: Never heard of them.
Mr. Laughren: That is the point I wanted to make. The member for Cochrane North says he has never heard of those places. That is part of the problem. The source of the problem is not so much the present minister, who has not had time to wreak havoc in those communities -- but give him time and I am sure he will make his mark -- as it is the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), each of whom has made his mark in those communities and is doing his little bit to make sure that tourism in northern Ontario never reaches its true potential.
That is becoming increasingly obvious. Every time the Minister of Natural Resources signs a new forest management agreement, it is obvious that he is taking a little bit more away from the tourism potential of northern Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Sterling: And provided a few jobs.
Mr. Laughren: A few jobs? Yes, I will grant the fact that the Minister of Natural Resources has provided a few jobs to friends of his Tory cabinet ministers in northern Ontario. I will concede that point. The minister of justice --
Hon. Mr. Sterling: Something like that.
Mr. Laughren: Something like that, yes. He makes a good point and I hope he will tell the Minister of Natural Resources he is pleased that some of his friends from Ottawa have taken away jobs from people in northern Ontario, in small communities with high unemployment rates. His friends have managed to take a few jobs away from people in the north who need those jobs. I am glad that the minister understands what it means when he is able to get one of his friends into some kind of summer position in northern Ontario.
I did not want to talk about that this evening because there are too many other things to talk about. Other speakers have talked about the whole question of the environment in northern Ontario. I will not repeat those arguments but it really is important that the minister understands that when he is receiving lobbies from different interest groups in the province, there are some interest groups in the province who have such a narrow interest they fail to take into consideration the fact that very often what they are arguing for is being argued against by some other group with whom they think they have a like-minded interest.
For example, in the north the chambers of commerce are always arguing for more industry and for us not to be so hard on Inco. Even the Regional Municipality of Sudbury said the Minister of the Environment was being too hard on Inco when he set new emission standards. The regional municipality and the chamber of commerce were making that argument while the tourist association was complaining about acid rain in northern Ontario. Those are people who are ideologically like-minded but who are making different arguments to the Minister of the Environment.
At some point the government has to say to those people, "Would you get your act together and decide what your tradeoffs are going to be." In northern Ontario, we get very tired of those groups trying to have it both ways.
I went to a presentation in Sudbury about a month or six weeks ago in which the regional development corporation had a slide presentation called "Image Sudbury." In Sudbury, the region is spending something like $78,000 or $80,000 on the "Image Sudbury" presentation to improve the image of Sudbury. This is a slide show, to which any members here and any interested group in the province can have access, to extol the virtues of Sudbury. If one looks at that slide show, one would think that Sudbury was an environmental Utopia. That is what one would think if he saw it.
The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) thumps his desk as though he believed that too. Does the member for Sudbury really believe that in Sudbury we live in an environmental Utopia? No; I am glad to see he shakes his head. I am glad to see the member for Sudbury recognizes there are still some environmental problems in Sudbury. But if one looked at that slide presentation, he would think that it really was Utopia. One sees the lakes, one sees the big homes and the parks there and one sees nothing of the evidence of the pollution in the Sudbury area.
Let us not kid one another when it comes to the whole question of attracting tourists to northern Ontario. The environment is a problem. For some reason we seem to think that if we improve the image of Sudbury, everything will be solved, instead of saying that the image will improve when the reality improves. No, there are groups who say, "You improve the image and after that, somehow people will understand that the reality is different than what it really is." That is total nonsense.
Mr. Stokes: It is called rye on the rocks.
Mr. Laughren: Yes, that is the tailings project. If the new minister wants to do something about increasing tourism in northern Ontario, he had better start with the reality and not the image. I defy the minister or anyone else to show us that the image can change people's perceptions in any meaningful way.
We are prepared to support initiatives that will improve the reality of northern Ontario but not those that are simply razzmatazz to improve the image. I believe if we are talking about tourism and recreation, and the two are not separate, we must have a long-run view of them. We cannot simply look at what maximizes the dollars tomorrow, because a lot of things that attract people must be looked at from a long-range view.
10:20 p.m.
There is a big debate going on now in northern Ontario between the pulp and paper industry and the parks enthusiasts, and I assume very shortly the Minister of Tourism and Recreation will be involved. It has to do with the extent to which we set aside parts of northern Ontario for wilderness areas or wilderness parks. Personally, I am a wilderness area enthusiast. I really believe that 100 years from now -- and I said this last week in a debate here, but I think it is worth repeating -- we are going to be judged more on the parks and wilderness we preserve than on the cords or the cunits we cut in our forests.
It is a very simple thing to say we are going to maximize the potential of our forests in the short run. In the long run, perhaps we will not be here to regret it, but those who follow us will. The pulp and paper industry is always making the argument that it needs more of the forests. Right now, three per cent of the productive forest potential in northern Ontario is set aside for parks. The parks enthusiasts want five per cent; so we are talking about two per cent of the potentially productive forests in northern Ontario.
The pulp and paper industry people say, "Despite the fact that the forestry management agreements are going to solve the problem for future wood supply, we need that two per cent." Despite the fact that there is not a crisis in supply, they still need that extra two per cent and they will not give it up so that we can have a viable wilderness parks experience, not so much for this generation as for the generations that follow. If they really believe we are in a situation where we can have wood supply in perpetuity because of regeneration and because of the commitment of this government, why do they insist on having every conceivable tree at their disposal?
I hope the minister will call their bluff and say that we can have the best of both worlds in this province. We can maximize a reasonable potential for wood supply if we implement an appropriate annual allowable cut under the forest management agreements and, at the same time, set aside the appropriate reserve for wilderness parks, gene pools, ecological preserves, or whatever we wish to call it. We are basically saying we want to set aside in their natural state so much of the forests of northern Ontario. I believe, in the long run, that is an investment we will never regret.
I know the government is under tremendous pressure in the short run to create employment, particularly when there is unemployment in northern Ontario. But in the long run we will be better served if we can set aside those natural preserves for future generations in this province. I understand the Minister of Tourism and Recreation will have enormous difficulties. We have a new ministry, one that as yet has no clout within cabinet, and it will have an enormous problem in competing for these preserves, for these priorities, with the Minister of Natural Resources.
I think what the minister should do is tell the Minister of Natural Resources that if he does not listen to him he will not refer any of his friends to him for summer jobs. Why does he not just get really tough with him and tell him he will not tolerate any of his high-handed tactics when it comes to setting aside preserves? I really believe we will all be better served in the long run.
Mr. Conway: Does Ed Havrot do the hiring for Nickel Belt?
Mr. Laughren: I think it is best that I not be diverted into any kind of debate with or comment about the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot). Besides, I have always believed that when a member is serving his last term in this place, we should be kind to him or her. I will not comment on the member for Timiskaming.
On the other hand, I have often wondered how it is that the Conservative members from northern Ontario are able to --
Mr. R. F. Johnston: Especially the member from Hearst.
Mr. Piché: For Cochrane North.
Mr. Laughren: No, that is the former mayor of Hearst. The people of Kapuskasing kicked him out, too.
I have always wondered how it is that the Conservative members from northern Ontario are able to go back to their constituents and say: "When we are down there in Toronto as a member of the governing party, we have fought for more tourism in northern Ontario, for more jobs in the forests, for a smaller proportion of the forest to be set aside for preserves, for lower gas prices and lower sales tax in northern Ontario and for more jobs for our young people in northern Ontario."
How is it that those members from northern Ontario are able to come down here to Toronto, support the government on every single initiative they take, whether it discriminates against northern Ontario or not, and then go back to their ridings and pretend they have stood up and spoken on behalf of their constituents when in fact they have done nothing of the sort?
It is going to catch up with them. I know, for example, the number of calls I get from Cochrane North, from people --
Mr. Stokes: I get more than you do.
Mr. Laughren: Well, I don't get many.
Mr. Ruston: I bet the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey) gets more than both of you.
Mr. Laughren: I do not get a lot, but I had one in which the constituent was threatening to move to Foleyet. I talked him out of that.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks.
Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, we have had a wide-ranging debate here. If no one else wants to speak, I would like to say a few words, but I only have about a minute and a half. Maybe I could just briefly cover two or three items.
We are on the Lake St. Clair shoreline, and fishing is one of the main items in our area. In fact, the Lake St. Clair area is known as probably one of the best fishing areas in Canada.
We have some problems, as the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) has mentioned, with some of the rivers that flow into Lake St. Clair; and we have trouble getting the small boats out because of sand filling in the mouth of the river. It is always a problem finding who is responsible for seeing that these are kept open. I might remind the minister that in the past the province of Ontario has taken some interest in this and has paid towards using either a sandsucker or dredging machines to clean them out. I would just draw that to his attention.
I will leave it at that, since it is closing time.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Baetz, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.