Hansard Transcripts 1982-Jun-07 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

On May 21, 1982, I put a question on the Order Paper, directed to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), asking if he would provide information as to any changes that had been made in the budget once it had been sent to the Queen's Printer, as follows:

"1. On what date was the first copy of the 1982 Ontario budget sent to the printer?

"2. Were any changes made on the first proof of the 1982 Ontario budget received from the printer and, if so, were the changes anything other than grammatical or spelling corrections?

"3. If changes were made to the first proof of the 1982 Ontario budget received from the printer, to what sections of the text do they pertain, and what are the details of the changes?

"4. How many times and when were the proofs of the 1982 Ontario budget returned to the printer with amendments?" and so on.

What I was trying to ascertain, obviously, was whether there had been substantive changes in the budget. I received a response on May 31, 1982. Actually, I got this only last week. The response was:

"The development of a budget is a complex undertaking which always includes numerous revisions as economic circumstances change. The specific details of the work leading up to the budget and the various options considered have always been a matter of confidentiality in the parliamentary system." It is signed by Tom Campbell, deputy minister.

My point is that the deputy minister is getting to be exactly like the Treasurer in that he did not answer the question asked. Since the Treasurer has declined to answer in the House and the Deputy Treasurer has given an answer to a question not asked, what recourse do I have as a member of this assembly to find out exactly what did happen to the budget and whether some substantive changes were made? How do we find out whether the confidentiality of the budget was maintained and whether the process is a valid one?

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that is a point of order. In answer to your specific question, which I am not sure I should even answer, I suppose your only recourse is to the Treasurer himself or to other members of the government.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If they refuse to answer, we have no recourse.

Mr. Speaker: Be persistent.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have been waiting 15 years.

FACILITIES FOR METRO VIGIL

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: About six weeks ago I was approached by members of the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto on behalf of the council and a group of clergy who wanted to come to the Legislature for a 24-hour vigil from June 8 to 9 to make a statement about the prospects of people in poverty in this province at this time and about their concern over the level of social assistance for those people.

I called the appropriate office in the Legislature that day about six weeks ago and started the wheels turning to see whether we could get permission for them to have a tent in which people could stay overnight because it would be a 24-hour vigil and to see whether they could have portable toilets on the grounds so they would be able to stay comfortably over that period of time.

There are some 70 clergy who have said they wish to participate in this. It is an ecumenical group of almost every faith in Toronto wishing to participate.

It is my understanding that it was only on Friday they finally received word from the minister that they would not be able to have either a tent or the toilet facilities on the grounds. It seems to me that, since I made the application that long ago, it would have been only appropriate that they would have had word earlier than this so they could accommodate the many older members of the clergy who wish to participate in this vigil.

I am quite concerned that this took so long. It just came to my attention this morning that they had been effectively turned down for the facilities they thought they needed to conduct this vigil in a proper fashion.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer that. When I spoke to the honourable member, I told him I first heard about this on Friday. I checked with my executive director, and they have been working quite diligently for the past three weeks with the lady who is heading this up, trying to find a way to use the Johnny-on-the-Spot facilities that were used by the contractors who were out front. We were not able to arrange that.

The member should be aware that before I was the minister in charge, they had allowed Johnny-on-the-Spots only to find there was a real problem in moving them afterwards. With the capacity they had in them, they broke open and caused a lot of leakage. It is not as easy as it might look.

We also had a lot of complaints during the time the heat people were going across University Avenue and across our property, not only from the members and the people who use this building but also from the general public. They asked what we were doing at Queen's Park. Perhaps we should have let the press know a little more about what we were doing. Perhaps the press should have asked us some questions so we could let the public know this was not going to be a mess too long. I think they have done a good job of cleaning it up, and I am only sorry we are not able to accommodate the people at this time.

2:10 p.m.

I should say too that last week we had two or three requests, all towards the end of the week, for people to use the building in that way or in other ways, whether it is to have a big balloon flying over the building for the weekend or whatever. But we have had trouble with these Johnny-on-the-Spots, and it is not as simple as one would think.

APPOINTMENT TO BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

Mr. Speaker: I have a copy of an order in council of which I should advise all honourable members:

"On the recommendation of the undersigned, the Lieutenant Governor, by and with the advice and concurrence of the executive council, orders that whereas the Legislative Assembly Act, section 84, order in council 1225/81 and order in council 835/82 provide for the composition of the Board of Internal Economy, during the absence of the Honourable Thomas Leonard Wells due to illness, the Honourable Robert S. Welch be appointed a commissioner on the Board of Internal Economy, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council from among the members of the executive council. This appointment is to be effective from the date of this order in council until the Honourable Thomas Leonard Wells returns to his ministerial duties."

It is signed by the appropriate persons and dated May 28, 1982.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I ask all honourable members of the assembly to join with me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery Mr. Christian Hayaux Dutilly, the mayor of Bernières-sur-Mer, France. Mr. Dutilly is visiting Toronto for the D-Day celebrations, which were held by the Queen's Own Rifles, Royal Canadian Legion 344.

WITHDRAWAL OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr. Nixon: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, just before you go into question period. I see the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) has resumed his seat; I understand you dismissed him from the House for using unparliamentary language, and I am not aware that he has withdrawn that language.

I know I do not speak for everyone in the House, but I must express my own concern that it is not sufficient for an honourable member to be dismissed from the House for a few hours or a few minutes when that member calls another member a liar, or words to that effect.

We have had this argument in the past, and I feel very strongly that a member should not resume his or her seat until the offending words are withdrawn. I do not believe there should be any exceptions to that.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, if I might, there is a precedent in this House. As a recipient of the former Speaker's generosity, I was shown the door on one occasion and, after having served my time, the former Speaker, the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), allowed me to re-enter the Legislature. Unless there is some other --

Hon. Mr. Eaton: One mistake does not make it right.

Mr. Martel: Is the member suggesting the former Speaker ruled wrongly? Maybe he can find for me somewhere in the rules where it says he ruled improperly.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Letting you back in was a mistake.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: The precedent is that, having been turfed out, a member is allowed to resume his seat on the next sitting day, and I ask the Speaker to take that into consideration.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the House leader for the Liberal Party has decided to raise the point, let me just say at this time that it is clear the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) does not understand the content of the bill, and I wish to withdraw the unparliamentary remark.

Mr. Nixon: May I just have further clarification? The House leader of the New Democratic Party indicated that he was able to call somebody a liar and return to the House without withdrawing. On the only occasion I recall that happening, he did withdraw. There might have been another one. But just so that we know the facts, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you might pursue this with your officials so that we would know what the precedents are. As long as I am a member, I intend to raise it on each and every occasion this matter occurs, and I certainly appreciate your co-operation in this regard.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear from the member for Sudbury East, but I think he should be the last speaker, because it is developing into a debate.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) and sundry other places recalls the occasion as vividly as I do. In fact, it was he against whom I made the accusation, and it was only after the Speaker allowed me back into the House that I was prepared to withdraw that unparliamentary --

Mr. Kerrio: The same thing happened here today.

Mr. Martel: I might say that my opinion has not changed with respect to the circumstances on that day. It is just that --

Mr. Nixon: Maybe you would like to go out again.

Mr. Martel: Maybe I would. Give me the occasion.

Mr. Nixon: And the record will show you withdrew.

Mr. Speaker: I indicated that would be the last person I would hear. The member for York South with a point of privilege.

Mr. MacDonald: I am curious to know why, when I stood, and you knew I was standing, you indicated that you were going to take only one more speaker on that point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I recognized the member for Sudbury East because, in my opinion, he had stood first.

Mr. MacDonald: Okay. You are in the chair.

[Later]

Mr. Speaker: I would just like, if I might, to take a few seconds of time to make some comments on the point of order that was raised by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

I do regard it as a very serious matter when one member accuses another member of lying. I think the standing orders are quiet on this as to the exact action to be taken, other than naming the member. However, I point out to all honourable members that when a member is named by the Speaker, and I am referring to standing order 20(b), "if the offence is a minor one, the Speaker may order the member to withdraw for the balance of the day's sittings; but if the matter appears to the Speaker to be of a more serious nature, he shall put the question on motion being made..." Quite obviously, there is a procedure in the standing orders to cover such an incident if any members were desirous of doing so.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Given that is the case, perhaps the Speaker would choose to give us an indication of what might be considered more serious and less serious. I say that not in jest but in all sincerity.

Mr. Speaker: I think that is really a matter for the House to decide. I was just expressing a personal opinion that all members are regarded as honourable members and that I think the title "honourable" is not to be taken lightly. In fact, it indicates that all members, being honourable, would not lie or would not mislead anybody.

If we are not going to respect that action, or indeed that title, then I think it is a very serious matter. In my opinion that is a serious matter.

Mr. MacDonald: Now that you have raised this matter again, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to make my point of order?

If you are looking into this issue, I wish to suggest that while it may be important to look at the superficial technicality of the rules of this very elite club which say you cannot say that a person is lying, it is equally important that you take a look at establishing some mechanism to establish where the truth lies?

I was thrown out of this House some three or four years ago; indeed, the Speaker imposed it.

Some hon. members: Hurray!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. MacDonald: I will be around here when most of the members over there are gone.

I was thrown out, may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, because I said if the Minister of Agriculture and Food continued to repeat a certain statement it would be tantamount to a lie. I did not say he was a liar; I said if he continued to repeat that statement, it would be tantamount to a lie. I was forced to withdraw. When the Minister of Agriculture and Food of the day, Bill Stewart, went out into the hail he confirmed that what he was saying was not accurate.

I suggest it is ludicrous that somebody could be thrown out of the House who does not even say that another member is a liar but that it would be tantamount to a lie if he continued to repeat a statement, when the minister within an hour confirms that what he was saying was not accurate.

If we want this House to retain its credibility, we cannot live on archaic rules that are elitist in their concept and say that one cannot use a certain phrase when we will not get to the reality of ascertaining the truth of what is before the House.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sure that the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) is making a valid point. The fact that the Speaker may have been in error when he either understood or misunderstood the words from the member is really neither here nor there. We are talking about a circumstance where a member deliberately called another member of this House a liar. I simply suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be difficult if not impossible for the other member, the wronged member if I may put it that way, to return to the House unless those words are retracted.

In the instance we dealt with today, the member is featured in headlines on the top of Federation Update as a hero. That is fine; if the teachers of the province think that is the way the business of the House should be conducted, that is their judgement. But I personally believe very strongly that what the member for York South has brought to our attention is past and gone and has nothing to do with a deliberate statement from one member that another is a liar.

I personally feel, and I agree with you in this, that it is a serious matter. If an honourable member in the opposition or representing the government does not get to his feet and move that the member be punished somehow -- frankly, that may be what is envisaged by the rules, Mr. Speaker -- I feel that it is your responsibility not to allow a member to return to the House except for the purpose of withdrawal after a statement like that has been made.

For the member for York South it may be elitist. I do not believe that is so. The word has a clear meaning and it has a meaning that is unacceptable under the clearly understood rules of this House. I hope that never changes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think this is again developing into a debate.

Mr. MacDonald: May I clarify the misrepresentation of my position?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think there is any misrepresentation. I understood clearly what you were saying. You were saying that you were wrongly asked to retire.

Mr. MacDonald: No, Mr. Speaker. Let me clarify it for you as well as the honourable member. What I was saying was that it is equally important -- forget my own instance and my case -- to establish a mechanism that can establish the truth of whether a lie had been made rather than to deal with the superficiality, the technicality, of calling a person a liar and withdrawing it.

Mr. Nixon: Send it to the standing committee on procedural affairs.

Mr. Speaker: If I may deal with that just for the moment: With all respect, I think that is the duty of the House. I do not think that is the duty of the Speaker or any committee. All the honourable members have a responsibility to make that decision. It bothers me to hear the words you chose. This is not a club, elitist or otherwise, in any meaning of the word. We are dealing here with an institution that goes back many centuries, which is traditional and historical, and we all must pay proper respect to it if we are going to preserve it.

Mr. Martel: Different centuries have different rules on it.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps. Anyway, getting back to the point that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk raised, in the light of lack of direction under the standing orders, perhaps this is something the standing committee on procedural affairs would like to take under consideration at the earliest opportunity.

GOVERNMENT JET

Mr. Bradley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to bring to the attention of the House the comments of the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) -- and it is unfortunate he is not here today -- to the annual meeting of the London South Progressive Conservative Association. The minister was asked about the $10.6-million expenditure on the Challenger luxury jet, and he is reported to have said he was not sure he could give a rational explanation for the jet.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will you identify your point of order, please?

Mr. Bradley: Yes. I think you know that those of us on this side are a very understanding group of people, and I just want to indicate that the minister should know we would be happy to hear even the irrational explanation for this expenditure.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, with all respect.

DEATH OF KIM ANNE POPEN

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning ministerial statements. In August 1976, a young child named Kim Anne Popen died in Sarnia, a victim of child abuse. In July 1978, we established an inquiry under Judge Ward Allan. In January 1979, three and a half years ago, he started writing his report. In June 1980, he said he hoped to be finished in September of that year. In April 1981, he said it was near completion. Since April 1981, he has been working full time, relieved of all his duties on the bench. In September 1981, he said it would be finished in a matter of weeks. In February 1982, he said it would be over very soon.

On March 23, I wrote to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and asked him what he was going to do. He said the majority of the work report was in final form and the final chapters and recommendations were being drafted.

It is June 7, 1982, in case I need to remind anybody. The latest information I have is that the report may be finished by the end of July. We have had no statement by the minister. I believe he should make a statement to terminate this inquiry --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: -- and to take possession of all the matters that the judge still has in his hands.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all respect, that is not a legitimate point of order. I suggest the honourable member may ask the Attorney General at the appropriate time.

Mr. Foulds: If I might, on the point of order --

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order; so you cannot speak on it.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Historically, yesterday was the anniversary of D-Day. Even the conquering of Europe did not take as long as this inquiry.

2:20 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO BORROWING

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. The Treasurer no doubt will recall a statement of the former Treasurer, Darcy McKeough, when he gave a directive to Hydro in 1976. I want to recall the words of that directive: "In any event, the wisdom of creating a situation where, year to year, we must borrow to the limit of capacity without viable alternative sources of funds should be challenged. If we expand the electrical system in a manner which takes risks with our financial standing, we shall be contributing to inflation and we shall also be prejudicing our medium-term capacity to finance the levels of public services at the provincial and local levels."

The Treasurer will recall that he also went on in the 1976 budget to say, "Provincial borrowing restraint must also be met by restraint on the part of Ontario Hydro."

Can the Treasurer explain why he is allowing Hydro to borrow more funds than are available to it on the long-term market? The evidence from Ontario Hydro to the Ontario Energy Board says: "Long-term capital availability from primary debt markets is likely to be significantly exceeded by financing requirements." As a result of that, Ontario Hydro is forecast to increase its borrowings in the short-term market by more than $370 million this year to finance some of its programs.

Will the Treasurer agree with me that it appears Ontario Hydro's borrowing requirements are getting very much out of whack and possibly beyond the capacity of them and the Treasurer to handle it?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the combined borrowing requirements of Ontario and Ontario Hydro of course are very important, and have to be assessed by the kinds of parameters that are in the documents the Leader of the Opposition mentioned. Some six years later I take no exception to the comments made by my predecessor. One must make sure the total borrowing is within the parameters the marketplace sets for available funds allocated to the Ontario jurisdiction.

I think in most parts of the world lenders really do not differentiate between Ontario Hydro and Ontario. In the United States, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, Ontario does the borrowing in its name and relends the money to Hydro. In some markets, I believe Europe is one, Hydro takes some in its own name. While I was in Japan one of the questions we were exploring was whether any borrowings in that market would be in the name of Hydro or Ontario.

I would say that when my staff makes the projections of deficits for the province they take into account the projected cash requirements of Hydro. In the last two years, as our awareness of energy dependency has become greater, we made a conscious decision in this government to increase our reliance on electrical power. Therefore, through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development document, the government requested Hydro to speed up some of the projects which, based upon projected load demands, one might say would not be needed.

I want to say that at this early stage one cannot be sure that all that power will be needed as it comes on, but the evidence is that if we did not have it, and if the almost inevitable world crises of oil supply continues -- and my colleague the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) will assure members it will -- then all members of this House could justifiably criticize us for not being ready and for not having indigenous sources of electrical or other forms of energy available for Ontario people. So we have made a conscious decision to do our best to have energy available and that has increased the borrowings of Hydro to some degree.

Mr. Peterson: That was a very nice speech but it had nothing to do with the question I asked. I will repeat it for the Treasurer: Is he aware that Hydro is running out of its capacity to borrow in the long-term market and is now borrowing short-term, and that as a result of short-term borrowing of something over $370 million this year, the government is going to pay $3 million in interest? The Treasurer is the one ultimately responsible for that.

In view of that and of the fact that about 40 per cent of the total energy bill paid by consumers in this province is now going to finance just the interest at Hydro, which is well over $1 billion a year, does the Treasurer not feel that as the chief bookkeeper for the province, including Hydro, he has some responsibility to step in as McKeough did in 1976 and not let this get out of hand, particularly when there is massive over-capacity and probably will be in 1990 as well?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Certainly I feel that responsibility. I would be the last to say it is not a major responsibility for me or for any Treasurer who succeeds me. I think all of us on the government side would accept that independent though Hydro may be in many ways, the ultimate responsibility for it rests with the government of the day. I do not think I have ever tried to duck that.

The Leader of the Opposition asked me if Hydro is able to borrow. I would point out that I think he has stretched interpretation of the markets. I think he would accept the fact that world debt markets are in disarray. The ease of getting long-term money on the 30-year basis that was available almost on a routine application a few years back has been seriously hampered for everyone. Yet, of all the borrowers recently entering the US market, Hydro is one of the few if not the only one, in the name of Ontario, to have received a 30-year issue. A $200-million 30-year issue was just floated.

We only went for $150 million and to the surprise of the underwriters the availability of capital for Hydro was such that they expanded it to $200 million that very morning. That is the measure of the confidence of the market in the triple-A rating of Ontario and the overall financing of Hydro.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, does the Treasurer remember the statement in the background paper to the BILD document on realizing the potential of electricity, and I quote: "Ontario's hydraulic and nuclear power plants will provide the province with relative stability in electricity prices in the 1980s, in sharp contrast with the continued uncertainty surrounding oil and gas pricing in Canada and abroad"?

In view of the evidence before the Ontario Energy Board hearings where we hear that Hydro is going for a 54 per cent increase, does the Treasurer not think that interest rates, and the uncertainty surrounding them, are providing a terrible uncertainty for the consumers of electricity in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The uncertainty of interest per cent of the total energy bill paid by consumer rates provides a terrible uncertainty for all of us, not just the consumers of electricity in Ontario. I think it is rather senseless to assume that is the sole cause of that increase.

Of course the cost of money is increasing dramatically for Hydro and of course there are good reasons to see the debt-to-equity ratio improve somewhat, but I would say it still passes the test of scrutiny. I would argue with the member that he should look at the cost of power in this province compared to our neighbours, with the exceptions of perhaps Manitoba and Quebec where they are basically on hydraulic resources only.

Mr. Kerrio: Why don't you mind your own shop? That is a cop-out argument. You are always talking about other jurisdictions.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That is not a cop-out argument.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member only needs to go across the border --

Mr. Kerrio: That is ridiculous and you know it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I caution the member for Niagara Falls that his interjections are entirely out of order. Has the Treasurer finished his answer?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Only if I respond to the interjection.

Mr. Speaker: No, the interjections are entirely out of order.

Mr. Peterson: If I may get back to the question. We point out in the question that it is in Hydro's own submission to the energy board that it is exceeding its capacity to borrow in the long-term primary market and is now into short-term markets that are costing the consumer more. As I pointed out to the Treasurer, 40 per cent of the energy bill is now going to pay interest. We know the reason for that is because of the large projects that the government has instructed them to go ahead with and we also know there is a massive over-capacity in the system.

The energy consumer is now paying for a massive system that has been ill-conceived and poorly built by the Hydro planners. That is the reality. Is it not time that the Treasurer took the bull by the horns and said: "That is enough. We cannot afford to pay any more in energy costs in this province at a time of recession"? That is the Treasurer's responsibility.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as I heard it, that was a lecture more than a question. I would only let my colleague, the Minister of Energy, at some time defend Hydro as an entity. Amongst the utilities of the world I think it is well respected.

TAX BURDEN

Mr. Peterson: I have another question of the Treasurer. I would like to read to him a letter that I received, and send him a copy with enclosures. It was written to me. It is from a Mrs. A. Miller, no relation I assume, from the Midway Ice Cream Parlour and Donuts, 2340 Dundas Street West, Toronto, Ontario. It says:

"I own a fast-food shop, and I took up a petition against the provincial seven per cent sales tax on fast foods which I had intended to send to Frank Miller, but I have been very concerned about what he might do with it. I felt he might ignore it or throw it into the nearest waste basket so I am sending this petition of more than 500 signatures to you instead, and hope you can make use of it, also a copy of it to send to him so it might not be destroyed."

She goes on: "Already, I have lost one-fourth of my business as people are already being charged tax in some fast-food shops, and they expect to be charged tax in my store. When this tax comes into effect on June 14, I wonder if my store can survive this tax.

"Further, I have had to buy a new cash register so that I can become an unpaid tax collector which my store cannot afford at the present time. Frank Miller should reimburse me for this cash register, and I should withhold the tax until it is paid for."

She goes on in her letter to the Treasurer, and I am going to send it across to him: "Take my store as an example: if it fails, four jobs are lost. Multiply that by hundreds of failed businesses and thousands of lost jobs. You plan to completely wreck the economy of Ontario."

What advice should I give this lady when I respond to her letter?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: First, Mr. Speaker, any Treasurer is keenly aware of the lack of enthusiasm for any change in any tax, after any budget. I have learned that in four budgets and I am sure that every Treasurer before me learned it. Apparently, the only time anybody is happy with a Treasurer is when he is giving away money.

On the other hand, I find it difficult to have the member lecture me and my government every day of the week about our deficits and our spending patterns, and object to us finding what are reasonably fair ways of raising money. I suggest to the member that meals have been taxed in most jurisdictions one way or another. On any basis in Canada, this government stands up as the most effective user of tax dollars, and the member knows it. We will pass any test he wants to put out and we will put it in print. As people reasonably aware of that business and having listened to the arguments of the hotel, tourist and restaurant industries, we chose what we thought was a fair middle-ground approach.

Mr. Peterson: Just so I understand, is the Treasurer suggesting that my response to Mrs. Miller should be that they are running a pretty good government, they are fairly efficient, not wasting money on Suncors or jets or things like that, and this is the fairest way to raise taxes, and that what happens to her four jobs and her business does not matter? Is that the way I should phrase my letter to her?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am sure it is the way the member will phrase his letter to her, but that is not what I said. I have learned that when tax was put on my tourist resort, the guests came. They did not like the tax, but they came. I can assure the member that when I had to raise $300-odd million in Ontario, I carefully assessed the alternatives and chose the widening of the base, which the member must admit has been eroded considerably over the years, as the fairest way to increase taxes.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, has the Treasurer made any assessment of how many jobs will be lost because of this tax on food under $6, in comparison with the $250 million he gave to the profitable incorporated businesses of this province?

Second, will the Treasurer clarify today the statement he made last week about the tax the nonprofit groups will be putting on dinners and food they sell at fairs? His answer was very fuzzy. Could he confirm whether the regulation is going to make a $1,000 limit for any particular banquet held once a year? Does he realize, if that is the case, in effect he is putting these groups in the position of having to charge tax on the vast majority of their functions?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think those are two quite different topics, the one related to the sales tax on restaurants and the other on charitable organizations. My colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) and I have been talking about the regulations, and I can assure the honourable member there are already exemptions in the regulations to which he can refer. There are still a couple of grey areas that we will identify, and we will answer those as we clarify them.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, to all our questions to the civil servants in the Treasury department about how the Treasurer made these decisions and on what facts and figures they were made, we were appalled at the responses we got. The budget appears to have been written on the back of an old envelope, and there seem to have been no economic studies done on the impact of these taxes. We have been told that in the food industry alone, 7,500 people may lose their jobs because of the tax on food.

Has the Treasurer set up any mechanism within the Treasury department to assess the impact on the provincial economy of the new taxes he has brought in, the retail sales tax broadening and others, so that he can report to this House in six months or less on the impact of those taxes he has laid on the people of Ontario? If those figures show these jobs are being lost and people are going out of business, will he rescind them?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, first, there are many problems in industry that are causing lost jobs. It is very easy for any person who is having a problem to find a whipping boy, which happens to be the sales tax in this case. I can assure the member a lot of people will use it as the final straw and say that is what did it.

I know of no easy-to-measure characteristic to tell me that net result. I only know that, on average, where you have a reasonably stable economy, tax does not change buying habits.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy about Hydro rates. Now that it is clear from the evidence before the Ontario Energy Board that the commitment of the government and of Ontario Hydro to nuclear power is at least a major contributor to the 54 per cent increase in cost to the consumers of Ontario Hydro over the next three years if Hydro gets its way, after Hydro has already received a 147 per cent increase in rates since 1974, what steps is the Ministry of Energy going to take to rigorously examine Hydro's expansion plans to ensure that the dreams and ambitions of the nuclear imperialists at Hydro do not gouge the consumers of Ontario?

Why have the true costs of nuclear power, including the interest costs on the enormous capital borrowings required, not been made clear to the government, the Legislature and the public of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the only application that is before us now is the one dealing with the 1983 rate. As the honourable member knows, since he is the critic for the Ministry of Energy, Hydro is required in a fairly clear-cut, straightforward way to make its proposals known to the Minister of Energy by a certain date. The minister then refers them to the Ontario Energy Board for public review, which is at present going on.

The only thing that is officially before us now is the requirements of Ontario Hydro for 1983, which involve a projected 13.9 per cent increase for 1983, taking into account the requirements of Ontario Hydro for that year to meet its obligation to provide the people of Ontario with power at cost.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, the minister likes to refer to the OEB hearing as an open, public hearing. Is he not aware of the submission by the counsel for the Ontario Energy Board, Mr. Rogers, which says, "However, it is important to recognize that of the total gross revenue requirement of $4.2 billion" -- that is for 1983, just one single application -- "over 50 per cent consists of costs which cannot be thoroughly examined because of claims to confidentiality."

Is the minister also aware that Mr. Rogers indicated in his submission to the board that: "Hydro is plagued with excesses, including generating capacity, heavy water and heavy water capacity, western Canadian coal, oil, uranium, nuclear fuel, land and possibly people. The board has not been able to examine any of these areas of concern due to claims of commercial confidentiality."

What kind of public and open hearing is it when 50 per cent of the gross revenue requirements of Hydro cannot even be examined by the counsel for the Ontario Energy Board?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that the Ontario Energy Board, in conducting its review and ultimately reporting to the minister, will have to share whatever observations and conclusions it comes to as a result of all the presentations. Certainly the Minister of Energy would assume that the Ontario Energy Board would have available to it the information that it needs in order to advise the minister with respect to the application of the utility.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the point is, and it was very well raised by the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party, that they do not have the information. That was the submission of Don Rogers, the counsel for the Ontario Energy Board. They are incapable of reviewing at least half the component costs that are going into the new rate structure.

That is the point. If they do not know what it is and if the Minister of Energy does not know what it is because he has washed his hands of this matter entirely anyway, would that not suggest to the minister, because he is getting into trouble on this, that maybe we should reinstitute the select committee on Hydro affairs to have a thorough look at this question that is getting way out of his government's capacity to control?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that the Ontario Energy Board is quite capable of looking after the assignment referred to it. It is one thing to quote what a lawyer may have said with respect to the public hearing. I am waiting to hear from the board itself the result of the review being conducted by members of that board --

Mr. Foulds: How can it make a judgment when 50 per cent of the costs are hidden from it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would think under the circumstances that if the Ontario Energy Board feels so handicapped, it would say that as part of its report.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, an extremely important new element has emerged here. If the lawyer for the Ontario Energy Board who is examining public disclosure of components involved in Hydro's proposed rate increase for the next year now says that 50 per cent of the information is not available to him and is restricted because of its confidentiality, my question to the minister is this: Does he know what areas are restricted? If he does, will he let us know in the House, not necessarily in detail, but which areas are restricted? If he does not, will he find out and inform the House?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The Minister of Energy would want to know of any handicaps being experienced by the board in carrying out its mandate. As a result of this exchange today, if there are such areas, I would be very happy to comment on them.

ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Treasure,r who was in the precinct a moment or two ago. Can he be reactivated? If not, I will have to ask the question of the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch).

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: While the Deputy Premier is listening, I hope the Treasurer is also listening and can come in and rescue the Deputy Premier.

Is the Treasurer aware of a study done by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing called Ownership Housing Survey in Seven Ontario Cities, October 1981? If he is aware of the study on home ownership, is he aware it shows that given today's mortgage rates, home owners who will renew their mortgages in the next two years will face an average increase in monthly payments of almost 40 per cent? Furthermore, is he aware the study indicates we can expect that in 1982 between 45,000 and 50,000 home owners will be faced with housing costs which will take 30 per cent of their income or more?

Given those startling statistics, will the Treasurer move immediately with a mini-budget to provide interest rate relief so that the tremendous burden of high interest rates can be alleviated on medium- and low-income families trying to keep their homes?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am not specifically aware of the survey. It may have crossed my desk, but I am sure the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) is aware of it. However, I do not dispute the figures the member has quoted as being those in it.

To answer his specific question, in my budget I said there was no need to duplicate a federal program that has a chance of working and appears to be working. That was an interest rate relief program for those paying over 30 per cent of family income. I want to see whether it does work or not. I also want to see whether my colleague, the federal minister, is bringing out a new budget in the next week.

Mr. Foulds: Does the Treasurer not realize that even for those people able to maintain their homes, if they have to pay a 40 per cent increase and in excess of 30 per cent of their income, the money they will have to allocate to trust companies and the banks will be money that is withdrawn from the economy, money that they would be spending on other consumer goods that would get the manufacturing sector of this province going and would help to maintain jobs in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, I am, but I have to point out there are two sides to every equation. For every person who pays more interest, there is somebody who receives more interest, including the tax man.

Mr. Peterson: I would like to ask a related question to the Treasurer on that. I am finding in my constituency capacity a number of people who, because of lack of financial capacity, are not being allowed to renew their mortgages by the financial institution with which they were previously carrying their mortgages. Due to the change in interest rates it is obviously taking a much higher percentage of their income and, as a result, they are not able to get mortgages.

Would the Treasurer undertake to have some discussions, be they formal or informal, with representatives of the various financial institutions in this province and use all the moral suasion he can summon up to persuade them to renew mortgages and prevent a lot of people from losing their homes because they cannot get mortgages at any price?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We had some discussions with members of the financial community, those who write the mortgages. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing certainly did, and I had some discussions during the pre-budget period. We encouraged them to be as inventive as possible. For example, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing requested Ontario Mortgage Corp. to go to weekly payment plans because that had the effect of reducing the time period somewhat significantly. I know a number of people are finding that an advantage in the long run.

I can certainly find no reason not to recommend to the minister that he consider the member's recommendation. It is always worth while to discuss innovative ways of helping people retain home ownership. The minister is not here today, but I would be pleased to know he is doing something of that order.

Mr. Foulds: Can the Treasurer tell us what direct action he will take on behalf of these people? Does he consider them to be among the losers too and his budget is only for winners? Is the minister aware that the study indicates that five per cent of the home owners in this province, 12,500 home owners, will be facing payments of over 41.5 per cent of their income for home ownership? Is the minister going to abandon these people completely? Why does he not do something within his jurisdiction here in Ontario to help at least the desperate cases?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think my colleagues will share our concern with the overall interest rate policy of the country, although I would not expect the opposition benches to do so. At a time when the American rates dropped half a point, ours went up half a point.

Mr. Foulds: Why don't you bring in interest rate relief?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I cannot bring in interest rate relief. I told the member the federal government has a program for that. I would dearly love to see policies at the federal level that would cause our rates to drop in tandem with the American rates, as they should, instead of having a panic run on the Canadian dollar brought about by lack of confidence in our federal colleagues.

HYDRO STAFF

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Is the minister aware of the evidence presented by Ontario Hydro to the Ontario Energy Board, which shows the head office bureaucracy of Ontario Hydro is forecast to increase by 392 people in 1983 over the 1982 forecast, bringing it up to 7,935 people? Is the minister aware that this growth has now overflowed into some 1.5 million square feet of owned and occupied office space in five downtown buildings and in two other buildings in downtown Toronto?

In view of the government's restraint program, is the minister concerned that rather than attempting to reduce the growth of centrally located staff in perhaps the most costly real estate available in Ontario, Ontario Hydro is, in fact, increasing its forecast? What is the minister going to do to bring Ontario Hydro under control and back into the real world? Is this not the only way he is going to begin to turn back the unconscionable increases in the cost of Ontario Hydro, not only to the public users but to the manufacturers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Welch: As I have indicated on other occasions, Ontario Hydro at present has an application before the Ontario Energy Board for its review. As the honourable member knows, coming as he does from the Niagara Falls area, the philosophy of Ontario Hydro has always been the provision of power at cost. The rate at which that cost is accelerating is of some concern, not only to Hydro, but indeed to those who have the responsibility of reviewing the revenue requirements, particularly as they relate to cost.

I have been assured by officials of Hydro that the Hydro board is very concerned about this whole area of growth in staff and has it under constant review.

3 p.m.

Mr. Kerrio: I wonder how the minister might justify the enormous growth in other areas. In view of the findings of the Ontario Energy Board, Ontario Hydro now requires 99 employees or one out of every 250 to negotiate with unions that administer the corporation's benefits program. One of every 30 to 50 employees are personnel people looking after employees and Ontario Hydro's public relations staff of 120 is only 38 short of the entire Ministry of Energy staff.

Will the minister not agree that Ontario Hydro is living well beyond its limits and that it must be brought back under some kind of control to live up to its mandate, not only to provide power at cost to the people of Ontario, but at a reasonable cost? Can he not cut that monster back and begin to develop power at a cost more equal to people's ability to pay?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am quite satisfied Hydro would be as conscious as any employer of the need to effect economies and efficiencies. Indeed, the member knows, from a response to a question earlier in this session as a result of some media stories dealing with this whole question of staff, that as we move to more dependence on nuclear power for the provision of electricity there is a certain labour intensity there not identified with other forms. We have to continue to meet our obligations.

As the member knows, the board of Ontario Hydro by the legislation is charged with these responsibilities and is generally accountable to its customers. These matters are reviewed publicly and I can only repeat what I said in answer to the main question: The board of Ontario Hydro would be just as concerned as the member to satisfy its customers. It is running the most efficient and effective organization it can to provide for the customers of this province electrical rates which I am sure, as the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has pointed out, are attractive indeed when compared with those of other jurisdictions.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can and will the minister tell us why this very simple question has not been answered? Why has there been this undue burgeoning of management personnel in Hydro? That is a simple question. How many of those management appointees have been brought in from firms having previous business contracts with Ontario Hydro, over the top of employees who are within the union structure of Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that is the type of question that would be better put on the Order Paper.

TAX BURDEN

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the provincial Treasurer and it is based on information obtained during our task force's trip to Sudbury last week. I would like to ask the minister if he is aware that because of his budget, the increased cost to the regional government in Sudbury will be $312,000 and to the city of Sudbury over $200,000?

Is the provincial Treasurer aware the regional municipality of Sudbury passed a resolution? This states, as follows: "Whereas the recent provincial budget announcements will have substantial financial impact on municipal taxpayers, and whereas the provincial budget announcements were made after most municipalities had adopted budget estimates for the year 1982 resulting in cost overruns for municipalities or service cutbacks, therefore, be it resolved that the regional municipality of Sudbury petition the province of Ontario to extend retail sales tax exemptions for municipalities."

Is the Treasurer aware of the problems and is he going to accept this recommendation from the regional municipality of Sudbury?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, I am aware, Mr. Speaker. That kind of question has been posed to me by half a dozen members of both parties opposite. I did predict that every municipality in the province would pass a similar resolution. The problems I have imposed on them add, as I pointed out, 0.5 per cent to their overall spending in a year on average. We thought this was no different from the problems we imposed on business people who had to pay more OHIP or whatever other tax I raised, or on consumers in the province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would have to ask the honourable members to limit their private conversations, please. That was the final supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: First question.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. All right. The member for Niagara Falls.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Treasurer, I wonder --

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is there not a second supplementary belonging to the New Democratic Party?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: A first supplementary, I mean.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I got distracted with the conversation. The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I am used to having to fight harder than most people to get my views across. My supplementary to the Treasurer is, does he recall the closing comments in the letter to him from the members of the Sudbury Board of Education? They said, "What with the federal budget in Ottawa still being a mystery wrapped in an enigma and your budget wringing blood from the wrong stones, it is a wonder to us that the well-dressed citizen does not go around today dressed in nothing but an empty rain barrel."

If the Treasurer recalls that comment, I assume as well he understands that problems in the Sudbury community are going to be particularly acute this year. If the Treasurer will not rescind the tax on those items that affect school boards, would he at least make a commitment to cover the extra cost in this particular year for the Sudbury school boards since they were unable to plan for this increase when they brought down their budget, in view of the very difficult times they are going to have in the community anyway collecting taxes this year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I could not make that promise.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with this M and M budget, MacEachen and Miller, I wonder if the Treasurer might have sent --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: Can the Treasurer honestly stand in his place and tell us in this House, and the people of Ontario, that he spent as much time in fabricating this budget as with his cabinet members to get them to cut down on the expenses in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, I did.

BUY-CANADIAN POLICY

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade on the buy-Canadian policy of his government. In a reply last week to a written question, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) admitted that Ontario's "We're proud to be Canadian" coins were minted in the United States. Can the Minister of Industry and Trade tell us why these coins were not struck here in Canada when such a company as the world-famous Johnson Matthey Ltd., assayers, right here in downtown Toronto, says it had the time to produce them and it could have done them for us. Incidentally, this company also produces the souvenir coins for the use of this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I raised this question with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on the evening the coins were handed out, which was, of course, the day before the constitutional events took place several weeks ago. At that time, it was indicated that was the only company within the time frame there was that could produce them in time.

Ms. Copps: That is not so. You are wrong.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Is the member telling me I am lying?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Do you want me to answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Are you saying that --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Boudria: Is that the end of the minister's answer?

I have a supplementary to the minister. It is in regard to the general principle of this government preaching a buy-Canadian policy. Incidentally, I am glad the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) is here, because he is very interested in the buy-Canadian policy. How can the government preach that to its citizens, yet something as symbolic as these coins, which say -- in spite of the fact there is a mistake on the coin -- "We're proud to be Canadian," are not made in Canada? If the minister is that proud to be Canadian, how can he allow this kind of thing to happen?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Obviously the honourable member was not listening to the answer. Perhaps he was rehearsing his next question. The fact is that I was informed and I take it as being valid.

Ms. Copps: You were ill-informed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I was not informed by the member for Hamilton Centre but by a person I consider to be a reputable source. That person indicated that in view of the very short lead time before production, it was impossible to have those in place. I do not think that was an unreasonable approach. They thought it would be better to have the coins in time for the event rather than several weeks thereafter.

There was a gathering on the lawns of this Legislature and in this building on the very day of the proclamation and it was because of that proclamation that the coins had not --

Interjections

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: Does the Minister of Industry and Trade not realize, as my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) said, that he has had over 115 years to get ready?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the honourable member. I thought it would be a longer question and that I would have time to catch up with it. I was eavesdropping with my colleague here who indicated that a relatively few sets had been sent to the States and that the balance had been produced here. He might be better able to answer that question. However, if the member will repeat his question I will try to deal with it.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister realize he has had over 115 years to get ready? Did he wait until the last minute to make the decision to get the coins minted?

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question of my friend the Minister of Labour regarding the use of ethylene oxide as a sterilizing gas in many hospitals.

Is the minister aware that ethylene oxide is a proven toxic substance with known effects such as skin disorders, respiratory problems, eye irritation, nausea, vomiting, nervous system and sensory-motor ills, and is now considered to be possibly carcinogenic as well? If he is, perhaps he can tell us why hospital workers have been denied access to certain studies.

A study done for the ministry by the Ontario Hospital Association in 1980 was given to all hospital management and all of the minister's inspectors but was denied to local health and safety committees. This same study was denied to Colin Lambert of the Canadian Union of Public Employees by Dr. Gewurtz of the minister's department, on May 3, on the advice of Dr. Anne Robinson, who informed him that CUPE was not to be given this study.

And why will the ministry not release to CUPE the terms of reference or findings of another study, that of a 10-bed hospital, conducted by his occupational health and safety branch? How can he say that workers have access to information when his ministry refuses to give to the hospital workers the studies which have been done on ethylene oxide?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, to answer the last part of the question first, I think the honourable member will agree that any time he has asked the ministry, through me, for any information or report of any kind -- and this applies to his colleagues as well -- the information or report has been forthcoming.

It is my understanding that the information that Mr. Colin Lambert has requested is in the nature of an interim report. While it has been my policy and that of the ministry to release all final reports, we have not been releasing interim reports.

Mr. Martel: Is the minister not aware that the study was completed in 1980, or that the second study, that of the 10-bed hospital, was done by the ministry itself? Does he not also know that there is yet another study being undertaken which, while it is going to study gases and will cover 75 hospitals, will supersede the study of ethylene oxide based on the other studies which have been completed and which the ministry has refused to give to CUPE?

Is he aware that under the latest study he is commenting on, the College of Physicians and Surgeons has asked to be involved but that none of the workers on the health and safety committees from the hospitals are taking part in the study?

At least three studies have been completed. Could we have those, along with at least the terms of reference of the present study that is going on?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I think that sounds like a reasonable request. I will be pleased to look into it and get back to the member accordingly.

SALES OF DUTY-FREE LIQUOR

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Will the minister tell this House whether the Liquor Control Board of Ontario is still negotiating with the federal government over the sale of liquor in the duty-free shops the federal government proposes to open at border crossing points in Ontario, such as Windsor, Fort Erie and Sarnia, just to name a few?

Is the minister not concerned that it is the intransigence of the LCBO to relinquish even this limited aspect of its monopoly that is preventing the establishment of these shops in Windsor, for example, a city already suffering from the hardships of high unemployment?

How can the LCBO justify its position when Manitoba, British Columbia, New Brunswick and Quebec have already agreed to establish trial programs and even Alberta and Saskatchewan have agreed in principle with the federal government to allow private enterprise to cooperate with the respective provincial liquor boards in the sale of liquor at these duty-free shops?

Mr. Kerrio: What is free enterprise?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) is in favour of it as long as it fits in with what he wants that day.

Mr. Kerrio: You don't know what the word means.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: We all understand that. Even Jim Coutts is in favour of free enterprise, is he not? Tell me about Jim Coutts and his views.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Is he not the fellow who supported the Suncor purchase?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the minister please address the question?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will, Mr. Speaker, but you have to acknowledge he is a problem sometimes.

An hon. member: All the time.

Mr. Kerrio: You better believe it.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the member that I share his interest in making certain the citizens of Ontario have the opportunity to take advantage of duty-free shops if we can reach some agreement on the principle.

I think we do not really understand the historical basis of what has happened in those negotiations. If one goes back to review them, one will find that in 1975, the then minister of this government, Mr. Sydney Handleman, met with Mr. Ron Basford in Ottawa and they reached a firm agreement on the establishment of duty-free shops. Everybody agreed to it.

As a result of that, the first one was established at Toronto International Airport. There was a firm understanding that the LCBO was prepared to open shops at designated border points and, where it was not economically feasible to carry out that opening, discussions and agreements could take place about distribution through an agent.

As the member knows, the LCBO has recently been in negotiations again because that agreement was abandoned by the federal government. They have been in negotiations again and those negotiations are stalled. I met with the board some time last week and talked about this. It is their view that, if there is to be a continuation of discussions, I should get in touch with my counterpart in the federal government. I will be prepared to do that.

Mr. Newman: Windsor is the busiest border area in Canada, having cleared a total of 11 million travellers, and Fort Erie has cleared an almost similar figure. The busiest single border entry point across this country is the Windsor area. The second area is Fort Erie and the three Niagara bridges. Does the minister not recognize the damage the LCBO position is bringing upon business establishments in these cities by holding back the creation of a substantial number of jobs at all Ontario-US border points?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I agree there is a need to try to resolve the issue. The point I am trying to make, and I say this with respect, is there was an understanding and we had always assumed it was a firm understanding. One party reneged on that understanding.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Who was that?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I do not want to tell you who it was. You are too nosy about those things. The less you know --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, it was the feds.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, I will not say that. I am sorry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Was it the feds? Was it the province?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am not going to tell you.

3:20 p.m.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. His women's bureau has provided me with statistics which show that the affirmative action program last year had only four staff members, one fewer than in the previous year, and a total budget of just $95,161, and that only 10 new affirmative action programs were established last year.

In view of the statement by the Minister's Advisory Council on Equal Opportunities for Women in its recently leaked draft report that "substantially larger resources have to be allocated to making the affirmative action commitment of the government known to all involved and securing their active support and participation," will the minister tell us how many additional persons he has provided for the program in his 1982-83 estimates and by how much, if any, he has increased the total budget for the affirmative action program?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) was listening to the honourable member because I agree completely with the information she has provided. We are anxious to obtain additional resources for the women's bureau. We are caught in the constraint program of this government, and we have found that we have had to cut staff and budgets in other sections as well.

I want to assure the member that we are trying to assess that particular circumstance with the women's bureau. We are trying to reallocate some of our resources and do everything we can to beef up the program.

Ms. Bryden: Is the minister considering the advisory council's additional recommendation that he ask government statistical agencies to require employers to collect and report statistics on the male/female breakdown for applications, positions filled and share of training programs? He could then monitor the need for affirmative action programs and the efficacy of the existing ones, and obtain facts that might give him cause to reconsider his stubborn rejection of legislated affirmative action as the best means of achieving equal opportunity for women.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I promised the advisory council a complete response before the 15th of this month on each of the points they had raised, and I promised that I would discuss it with them personally on the 28th of this month. The response to their questions is being typed at present and will be in their hands before the deadline I gave of June 15. I think it would be inappropriate for me to give the honourable member the response before the advisory council receives it. However, they will have it very shortly, and it will be public after that.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. I am sure the Treasurer will remember how he and this government announced with great fanfare their bid to help create short-term jobs in the municipalities under the Ontario employment incentives program. I would remind him that, in announcing the program, he said on page 6 of his budget that the speedup of capital projects in the province had as its emphasis those communities, and I will use the Treasurer's own words, "where unemployment is highest."

In the light of that commitment can I ask the Treasurer why the city of Windsor, with 21,000 unemployed, or 14 per cent if he believes Statscan, received just $1,561,000, or 4.5 per cent of the available funds; why the city of Brantford received only $320,000, less than one per cent of the funds; why the city of St. Catharines got only $306,000; and why, in heaven's name -- and I hope my friend the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) is listening to this -- the city of Chatham, with one of the worst unemployment problems in the entire province with over 8,000 people out of work, got a grand total of $180,000? What kind of cruel joke is the minister playing on the unemployed in those cities to promise relief and then come up with that kind of pathetic response?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that is not my response; it is the response of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett). It is best addressed to him when he is here.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, is the Treasurer now trying to tell us that when he said in his budget the money would go with emphasis on those communities most affected by high unemployment, those were just words? Or did the Treasurer talk to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and indicate that a high priority should be placed on those communities with high unemployment? If that kind of high priority was given, why did cities with high unemployment receive nothing more than a very average amount of money? Why did they not get the emphasis in this program?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the reason I say the member should address the question -- and he knows he should -- to the minister responsible for a program is this: of course he knows I said that because it is in the budget and the budget is used as policy for ministers implementing programs.

Second, I have no idea from the statistics the member has read whether those percentages are fair or unfair. That is the kind of information the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing could provide. I do not know Windsor's percentage of the population of Ontario, for example. If 4.5 per cent is correct then it would seem the member has a point. If it is not, then I do not know, but that is what operating ministers look into.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Treasurer whether this is just another Tory program -- and the way he has allocated the money seems to prove this -- and that the only purpose of the program was to give the people of the province the illusion that he was doing something about unemployment? The allocation of the figures shows more clearly than anything else that he had no intention of creating jobs and attacking the problem on a regional basis but simply wanted to try to give the people of this province the illusion that he was doing something when he really was not.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. The member has often criticized me heavily for sums such as the ones just read into the record.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the provincial Treasurer will recall that in the absence of anything else really substantive in his budget for the agricultural community he reminded the public that the farm adjustment assistance program was going to assist 5,000 farmers. Is he aware that at the end of the first five months of that program, which is restricted to this calendar year, there were only 732 farmers helped?

Ralph Barrie, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, said, "I am disappointed that there was nothing in the budget relaxing the aid program because right now it is so tied up in red tape it is not helping the people who need it." Would the Treasurer not agree that if only 732 farmers have been helped in the first five months, relaxation is needed? Why did he not bring in some relaxation in his budget? Was he asked for relaxation by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell)?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the kind of relaxation that was talked about was obviously not in quantum but in detail. I can tell the member that the minister has the authority to adjust, and has made adjustments in, the procedure.

Frankly, I have very good relations with Mr. Barrie. We are able to speak to each other whenever he has a question. He may have voiced some concerns, but I have not heard him use those words directly to me. He may have used them to the Minister of Agriculture and Food with whom he normally would deal on those details.

I want to say this, though. We did not just gloss over the agricultural sector. If the member takes the percentages of the original budget that have been added, hardly a ministry in this government has had such substantial changes to the published estimates of last year as has the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. That indicates our concern for the farmers of Ontario. Certainly, we are flexible enough to respond to requests of those groups if administrative problems are encountered.

ROYAL ASSENT

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

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

Bill 6, An Act to revise the Business Corporations Act;

Bill 9, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act;

Bill 36, An Act to establish the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture;

Bill 41, An Act to establish the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation;

Bill 60, An Act to provide for the Institution of Complaints for Certain Assessments made in the Year 1981 in the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

3:30 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PEER AND SMITH LIMITED ACT

Mr. Brandt moved, seconded by Mr. Dean, first reading of Bill Pr23, An Act to revive Peer and Smith Limited.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 150, 162, 163, 164, 180, 184, 185, 188, 189 and 194, and the interim answers to questions 190, 191, 195 and 203 standing on the Notice Paper [see Hansard for Friday, June 11].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)

On vote 701, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

Mr. Chairman: I am in the members' hands as to the procedure.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman, I must leave the chamber to attend a committee meeting for a few minutes, but I would like to point out that the time remaining in the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs is two hours and 44 minutes. I have just conferred with my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), and everyone is in agreement to see the estimates be concluded at six o'clock even though technically we may be a few minutes short.

Mr. Stokes: I can confirm that, Mr. Chairman, with the understanding that we have a broad discussion on all the items so that we do not cut off anybody who might have some responsibilities with committee. We can have a wide-ranging discussion on all the votes between now and six o'clock and pass them all at six o'clock.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I am in full agreement with that.

Mr. Chairman: Do we have full House agreement?

Agreed to.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, does the minister have some statement he wishes to make before we proceed?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Chairman, I do not have any announcements or statements to make now, but I do have for the honourable members something I promised some time ago, the annual report of the northwestern Ontario health unit, the school mobile dental treatment program, which I will be glad to send over to the members.

I believe that on Friday last I sent them a copy of the wild rice report. I hope they received that.

Mr. Chairman: While that is being done, it is my understanding that all the votes will be passed at six o'clock.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, since we are going to be dealing with matters concerning various things, I wonder if I could go back to the questions I raised about norOntair with the minister last week.

I should preface my remarks by saying that I have written the minister to ask him whether he would give me copies of the agreements his ministry has with Airdale and On Air in Thunder Bay in regard to the contracts they are operating under norOntair. So far I have not received an answer from the minister. Maybe he can give me one, but just let me go on dealing with norOntair.

In response to my question about norOntair being moved from North Bay to Sault Ste. Marie, the minister indicated that an announcement to this effect had been made in northern Ontario. It was interesting that the minister did not refer to it in his opening remarks on his estimates. After all, it is something that is fairly major.

I asked at the time whether the minister would table the feasibility study done a couple of years ago which justifies this move. The minister never did answer the part of the question as to whether he would table the study. I am sure there is no reason why he would not, since it supposedly justifies the move.

I wonder also whether the minister is aware that his colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) was on the local radio station in North Bay last Thursday night or Friday, saying no final decision had been made about the transfer of norOntair from North Bay to Sault Ste. Marie -- maybe I have some of my facts mixed up a little -- and that now a study was being undertaken to justify the move.

I wonder whether the minister can indicate whether he will table that study and why he did not make any announcement down here. The citizens of North Bay and others are quite concerned about what is going on in this regard. They, as well as we, would like to see the study that supposedly justifies the move to Sault Ste. Marie.

It is interesting as well that this move should take place in a period of restraint. I presume the minister can table the information that indicates there will be a substantial saving to his ministry and the government.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I wish to respond to the honourable member. Let me first point out that the member for Nipissing has been meeting with me on a regular basis, contrary to the honourable member's earlier comment in this Legislature --

Mr. T. P. Reid: He just has not gone back to his constituents.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, he has. He has been very vocal and supportive of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission from square one, both in this Legislature and back home. Any aspersions or comments that may reflect on his interest and concern with regard to the future of norOntair should be removed from the record here and now.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Do you know what he said in North Bay yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I know the member's sensitivity, because his only supporter in northern Ontario disappeared and he is all alone now, the lone Liberal member in northern Ontario. His party has only one. I realize the member likely had a call from Jean-Jacques Blais, Mike Bolan or somebody. Somebody called you from North Bay and said, "Try to embarrass the member from North Bay because blah-blah." Something happened --

Mr. T. P. Reid: His constituents phoned me; the judge does not involve himself.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member from North Bay has been very helpful in our discussions and is very sensitive to the future of norOntair.

I will be making a public statement to this effect possibly tomorrow, but I will advance the guts of the statement at this time. We will be doing a further study and review of that decision with respect to norOntair because, as the member may not be aware, this has been going on for some two or more years now.

Since we looked at the norOntair operation and at moving 125,000 people across northern Ontario from 21 different communities, it was obvious there was a great future for norOntair. Then, of course, he saw us move into a broader field, with the more sophisticated type of aircraft, such as the Dash-8 now coming into our system, which necessitated that we examine carefully where we are going with norOntair.

There is no question that we are taking a major step forward. We are not in the Twin Otter class any more. We are in the airline business in a big way. The member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) is very much aware of what I am saying, because the Dash-8 aircraft is highly sophisticated, much more so than the Twin Otter. So it was necessary for us to look at it very carefully.

3:40 p.m.

The possible move of the service, or even its extension to other parts of northern Ontario, is something we have looked at. The people in the norOntair system have been aware of that and have been working with us for a considerable time. The study to which I referred was done some time ago. It deals with a broad range of policy issues relating to norOntair --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Which you are not going to table.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- not specifically with the operation itself or the move itself, which will directly relate --

Mr. T. P. Reid: We really need a freedom of information act in this province.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It speaks in very general terms of centralization, improvement in training and what efficiencies would occur if certain things were done. The member from North Bay has asked us, in view of budget constraints and in view of these economic times, a year and a half after the original study --

Mr. T. P. Reid: If I had not raised it in the House, you would have gone ahead and snuck it through.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, I think the member for Rainy River has jumped the gun on what we were going to say anyway.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Andy Morpurgo told me.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, I do not think Andy told you that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I like to see his name in the estimates.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He is a strong supporter of northern Ontario, and I am glad the member put Andy Morpurgo's name on the record.

We will be doing a study within the system, and I can assure honourable members it will be made available to them. There is no question of that at this time. I know the member from North Bay has repeatedly asked to hear about anything we do from here on in relating to facts and figures that would help him in his concern for his own riding and his home community of North Bay. We have acceded to that demand.

The member asked whether I would table the contracts between the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and the private carriers that operate norOntair. I have to point out that is a contractual arrangement with a crown corporation. We do not have the contracts; they are negotiated between the ONTC and the private carriers. So it is obvious that I would not have the authority, or even the contracts to table. That is where we stand on that study.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I want to make another couple of comments on economic development. I will keep them brief, because I know other people want to involve themselves.

The ministry has done some good things, particularly norOntair, which the minister will recall was my idea some years ago. But I said it before when I was the critic, and I will say it again, it seems to me its biggest failure has been in terms of economic development.

If we look at the figures, we will see that in northeastern Ontario there are 16,000 registered unemployed, or 7.4 per cent of the work force. In northwestern Ontario there were 10,000, or 10.8 per cent, unemployed as of April 1981; that has gone up to 11,000, or 12.9 per cent of the population, out of work in northwestern Ontario in April 1982.

There have been massive layoffs at Algoma, Falconbridge, Inco, Boise Cascade in Kenora, Levesque Plywood in Hearst, Stelco in Ear Falls and so on. Obviously a lot of these are due to a large extent, or to some extent certainly, to the economic conditions in the world. However, we do not see a lot of attention being paid to job creation in northern Ontario. This lack of job stimulation seems to me to be a shortcoming of these estimates and the record of the minister.

It is interesting that the program involving $500,000 to provide jobs, which the minister announced following the budget and which was to be administered by the northern affairs offices, has not spent one penny nor has received a single application so far. That program seems to be a public relations boondoggle as far as short-term job creation is concerned, and there is very little in the way of long-term job creation.

I wonder whether the minister can give us some idea of where he is going in terms of stimulating job creation and providing long-term jobs in northern Ontario. Can he make reference to the program he announced following the budget and tell us exactly where it is at? I also wonder whether he can let us have a short report on the status of the study which I believe was being done by the northern resource ministers on one-industry towns. I believe a committee was set up to study this matter at one of the conventions he is always going to.

Before I sit down, I want to congratulate the minister for expanding educational television in northern Ontario after all these years. I have always contended that we should have started educational television in northern and rural Ontario.

I was glad to participate on the weekend in that meeting at Old Fort William, in Thunder Bay, at which the minister was so ably represented by his parliamentary assistant in the sense of his getting as much publicity as he could out of it as well, even though the pressure came from this side of the House for the program. But we are glad to see, finally, the expansion of that service to many areas of northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, as I sit on this side of the House, I am elated every time we examine the estimates of this ministry to see the member for Rainy River jump on the bandwagon for all the good programs we are doing and take credit for them. NorOntair was his idea, TVOntario was his idea --

Mr. T. P. Reid: I'll show it to you in the estimates, if you want to prolong the debate -- and you people laughed.

Mr. Stokes: He was reading my speeches.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes. He was reading the speeches of the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Remember old Irwin Haskett?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I was a back-bencher then and I was advocating highways-in-the-sky programs.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You listened to my speeches, and they paid off years later.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am glad to see the northern members are on the same wavelength. And I am glad to be on this side of the House to be able to put those programs into practice and to make sure that they respond to the needs of northern Ontario, as we are doing so very effectively.

However, I am surprised to have the member for Rainy River stand up and talk about economic development, particularly after what this ministry has done in Atikokan. I thought he would stand up and recite chapter and verse of what the Ministry of Northern Affairs has done to create a stable atmosphere in the town of Atikokan.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You have done a pretty good job in Atikokan --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I hope Hansard got that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: -- but nothing in the rest of northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As long as we have got that community sorted out.

The member points to economic development. I think this is a thrust we have taken very strongly in at least the first years of our existence. I wish I had a copy of the May issue of that magazine published in Sudbury, Northern Ontario Business. I do not know whether the members saw the May issue. I hope to have some extra copies here before we wind up at six o'clock so that the members can read it and study it --

Mr. T. P. Reid: You gave us a copy two weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Did I? That magazine, which is solely interested in and oriented towards northern Ontario, did an excellent job of pointing out the $6 billion in capital funding that would come from the private sector alone in northern Ontario in the very near future.

The writer of the article cites chapter and verse, and he is very specific. He outlines all the various initiatives and thrusts by the private sector, in the pulp and paper industry, the mining industry and the manufacturing industry -- he goes through a long list -- and many of those were a direct result of initiatives taken by this government, not by this ministry but by this government in some way, shape or form. The harvest is there. We are starting to bear fruit now because of the proper cultivation that has been done over the past few years.

3:50 p.m.

I look at the forest industry, the mining industry, the municipal infrastructure and even the unorganized areas. Our ministry is involved with the forest regeneration program under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion forestry subsidiary agreement. We are sending a flow of money to the Ministry of Natural Resources to make sure that there are long-term guarantees for our forest industry. We are working very closely with the Ministry of Natural Resources. I am sure that if the member goes down to the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources, he will see our involvement in topping up and plugging into those specific programs and those ideas that need to be carried out.

The geological surveys we did in the member's riding, between Atikokan and Dryden, were a direct result of our involvement in putting up our dollars --

Mr. Stokes: How many new mines?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think we have to take into consideration the economic downturn we have had. I am confident that there is something there; it is something that is going to surface sooner or later, because that is where the resources of this province really lie.

The member is very much aware of what we are trying to do to improve the position of the communities by providing them with the infrastructure, the sewer and water facilities, the development of industrial parks and the industrial development strategy. We did one for Fort Frances. We are putting $1 million into sewer and water facilities in Fort Frances to assist that community directly to bring industries to Fort Frances, and I am sure the member was pleased with that announcement.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Very pleased, yes.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Very pleased. So we do not do things on a political basis; we just do things where the need is the greatest, and we recognize that need, as we did in Schreiber a few years ago. When the need was acute in the town of Schreiber, we responded to that need.

The member is very much aware of what we are doing in the unorganized areas. Up to this time, until this ministry was brought into being, there was no recognition of the unorganized areas. About 60,000 people were living in limbo, as the honourable members will know. Just last week I had the opportunity to announce a $500,000 job creation program in the unorganized areas. Such a program was never heard of before; for the first time in the history --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Right. They still have not heard of it. And there has not been one job application, nor have the minister's officials gone out and told anybody about it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: My staff, who are sitting in front of me, Mr. Tieman and the deputy minister, Mr. Hobbs, met with the northern affairs officers just last week to outline the program to them, and they reported to me that the enthusiasm of the northern affairs officers was absolutely fantastic.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I checked today and they have not gone out yet.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They will be going out this week. Once they get the details, the criteria are very simple. They will take the applications; they will work with the unorganized communities and the pockets of population to make sure those funds flow. We have got the northern affairs officers involved. We are not going through a whole range of red tape, which these groups and small local services boards abhor. They just cannot stand the paperwork; they want to get on with the job and do it. We responded to this; it is something we had devised a system to respond to.

The member asked for a copy of the report on the single-industry communities which I have been working on with my colleagues across Canada. That report is due to be brought to our attention this September in Prince Albert. As he knows, we have a new, enlightened government in Saskatchewan. The minister has informed me that he is going ahead with the northern affairs conference in Prince Albert in the middle of September, and I hope the staffs of the various departments from across Canada will have pulled together what is the first draft of that report on how the various provinces are dealing with the problems of single-industry communities.

As I have said many times in this House, there is no simple solution to the problem of single-industry communities, as we saw in Atikokan; there has to be a multiple approach and one that is accomplished on a very pragmatic basis.

I appreciate the member's comments with regard to TVOntario. I am pleased that my parliamentary assistant, the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy), was able to represent me very ably at that function in Thunder Bay, I believe at Old Fort William, to outline again the interest we have in making sure the people of northern Ontario receive at least in part the same services at the same cost as do the people in southern Ontario, that being TVO off air at no charge to them.

They get it down in southern Ontario, and as the member for Rainy River's very vocal colleague from Emo -- what is her name?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Ida Olsen.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Ida Olsen; a very charming person who has written me numerous letters. In fact, I was very pleased to receive a bouquet of red roses the day we made the announcement about TVO service being extended to northern Ontario. We thank her for that, of course, because she has made a tremendous contribution and she has been a great supporter of TVO. I think she has done exceptionally well, and I know the member for Rainy River is very proud of her contribution.

With those remarks, Mr. Chairman, I think I have answered all the members' comments. If I have not, maybe they will bring it to my attention.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, the minister gets all the roses and we do all the work. He was not anywhere to be seen. We were the ones there over the weekend: the member for Fort William, the member for Rainy River and even the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds). The minister was flying over at about 10,000 feet, I think.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Waving his roses -- throwing his roses out of the airplane.

Mr. Stokes: Yes. However, we do welcome the announcement; it is something that all of us have been advocating for a good many years and finally we are bringing those isolated communities in northern Ontario into the cultural, educational and informational mainstream of Ontario society. It is long overdue, but, for the part the minister played in it, I want to thank him on behalf of my constituents.

I want to follow up briefly on something the member for Rainy River said with regard to economic development and the stimulus provided by this ministry. I want to be very specific about the northern Ontario rural development agreement.

I have written letters and I have had phone calls from the people in Sault Ste. Marie responsible for that program. It took me about eight months to get the criteria for it. They have a tourist component, an agricultural component and a natural resources component. Every time I thought I had a focus on the intent of the program, I would send an application or advise one of my constituents to send an application to Dave Head from Sault Ste. Marie, saying: "I think this would qualify." I have not found one yet that fits the very narrow parameters -- if that is the right word -- that have been laid down by the agreement.

I know the minister has announced something like 18 or 23 different programs approved for assistance under the NORDA program but none of them, that I have been able to ferret out, from entrepreneurial personnel in my riding.

Let me give one example. I have a chap by the name of Mr. Lankimaki of rural route 1, Hurkett, who has three different schemes whereby he thinks he can qualify for assistance under this program. A letter was sent to Mr. Lankimaki and signed by Mr. Head, and it says:

"I am sending you a kit regarding the Canada-Ontario rural development agreement. After you have read through this material, you may wish to make further contact with us or apply under those programs which appear to address your needs.

"If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.

"Yours truly, David Head."

4 p.m.

I just got a letter this morning -- I do not have it with me but it is down in my office -- saying they have looked at the schemes and they do not meet the criteria because of market conditions. I do not know whether this is somebody in the Ministry of Northern Affairs or somebody who has taken the advice of the Northern Ontario Development Corp., whose guidelines I think you use for the administration of this program and for approval of funding.

This fellow has made three excellent proposals. I do not know what it is we have to do to convince people that they should have faith in northern entrepreneurs. They do not go into these things blindly. They are spending their own time, money and energy. Sure, they need some assistance, a little leg-up if you will, but we get somebody who really does not know what he is talking about saying to these entrepreneurs:

"We do not think this is a good idea. Come up with another one." They go back, run it through the mill, come up with another idea and then they say, "No, we do not think that is a good one either."

If you do not think they are good, why do you not come up with some entrepreneurial know-how? It is frustrating for these small businessmen in the north who are trying to create employment, manufacture products and provide services to be thwarted at every turn.

I know that is not the intent of these programs. The intent of these programs is to stimulate economic development, but I think the terms of reference are much too narrow. I do not know where they are conceived. As I said in my opening comments, it seemed to take months after the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development made the announcement to provide some money for rural economic development to find out that it does not seem to matter what these small businessmen and entrepreneurs come up with or conceive. The answer is always, "No."

I know it is frustrating for me and it must be doubly frustrating for them. The minister thinks he has all the answers in this northern Ontario rural development agreement program and these other schemes. He has not even announced the criteria for the economic development programs for assistance to the local service boards for unorganized communities. We still do not know what the criteria are. We know he is going to provide 100 per cent of labour costs up to $7,500 for each single applicant and 25 per cent, I think it is, for material costs, rental of equipment or that kind of thing.

But what kind of programs will they be? Are they just going to be make-work programs or are they going to be schemes that will have an ongoing benefit to the community rather than just a cleanup? I think these are the ways in which the minister can assist the small entrepreneurs in these communities to get a little business going so that eventually we will become self-sustaining and it will have a ripple effect right through the economy of northern Ontario, rather than a one-shot deal where the minister is just going to clean up some garbage or debris, make a fire-break or do something like that. It should be something with a lasting, beneficial effect for the northern economy.

I want to find out something from the minister in his role as an expediter, a co-ordinator, a communicator. My colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) said the minister and he had an exchange in my absence on Friday about a difference of opinion between him and me with regard to the minister's function in that regard. I want to report to the minister there is no difference either ideologically or in any other way between the member for Nickel Belt and myself when it comes to the minister's intervention with regard to Hydro rates in northern Ontario; absolutely none.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: But he admonished me for doing it.

Mr. Stokes: No, I do not think he did. He just wants to see some results.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He admonished me for doing it. He said it wasn't my role.

Mr. Stokes: I think it is your role. He convinced me that is what he had said on Friday. He felt it was your role and he just wanted to see some results. That is all.

I want to read a letter into the record. It comes from Kapuskasing. Listen, écoutez bien. It is dated May 16 and it is addressed to the Treasurer (Mr. F.S. Miller). It says:

"Taxing the common people and the poor for the benefit of the rich is a very old tactic that really works to create a climate of bleeding for the cause. In the latest provincial budget you cleverly avoided taxing the multinationals, internationals, banks and insurance companies, many of whose origins and transferability of expenses and incomes it is impossible to follow. Subsidizing the functions of multinationals, banks and insurance companies at the expense of the common people is unfair, detrimental, inflationary, and increases unemployment at the expense of directing the multiplier effect towards and for the benefit of the corporations, banks and insurance companies.

"Certainly you must see the statistics and observe that it is the transactions of the above parties and not the expenses of the common people that are responsible for the provincial deficit and loss of revenue. Are there that many fringe benefits to the members of key supporters of the Blue Machine that caused you to take the extreme position that was hinted at for a good number of years? The basic law of life, economically and socially, 'Do unto others as you would like them to do to you,' also applies to finance ministers and leaders of multinationals, banks, insurance companies, whether they be foreign or Canadian.

"What control the multinationals, banks and insurance companies did not already have over the people, the provincial government gave them by taxing labour costs. This is a devious movement to perpetuate the throw-away society mentality as well as to make us, the people of Ontario, even more dependent on corporations for goods and services we could be doing for and by ourselves. We want real growth, not apparent growth, and that means dealing with root causes and not playing around with the symptoms." That is from a tax-paying citizen, and I am not going to reveal his name, but he lives in Kapuskasing.

I want to find out, in addition to my earlier comments, about the advocacy role this minister plays on behalf of northerners, whether it be the nature of the budget that was brought down, whether it be the seemingly discriminatory hydro rate policies of Ontario Hydro or whether it be the indifference with regard to the unusually high costs for northern communities. We have a task force that has been out for about eight months studying this very bothersome but complex problem, and as I said in my opening remarks, we have places in northern Ontario where they are paying $5 a gallon for gasoline, $2 for a loaf of bread, anywhere from $2.25 to $2.50 for a dozen eggs, 50 cents for an apple, 50 cents for an orange, and on it goes. The minister knows that.

In the minister's opening comments he sent over to us an annual report of the northwestern health unit school mobile dental treatment program. This is fine. It is working well in Kenora-Rainy River, but I do not happen to represent Kenora-Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Them's the breaks.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Yes. I was sent down here to represent the people from Lake Nipigon riding, the largest riding geographically in Ontario.

It is fine for the minister to say everything is okay with regard to the provision of dental services in northern Ontario because you have initiated a program of mobile dental clinics under the auspices of the Kenora-Rainy River District Health Council. That is fine, but I want the minister to address what I have been talking about for many months and years, places like Savant Lake, Pickle Lake, Armstrong and a lot of the northern communities that are not accessible by that van. What are you going to do for them? All I am saying is I want more of the same.

I want to find out whether the minister will broaden the terms of reference of the task force looking into the high costs in the far north, that is, for areas accessible only by air. I have had some talks with members of that task force and with some of the air carriers in the north. We all have similar concerns about not wanting to destroy the good things we have in the north.

I would like to presume to speak for those northern communities in terms of the beneficial effect of shipping essential goods by way of Canada Post out of places like Nakina and Pickle Lake as they are doing for furtherance north of Timmins. The 13 cents they are paying by parcel post, which I am sure is going to go up, is still a far cry from the 35 cents to 75 cents per pound if one ships it under the normal charter or air carrier rate. Most of those communities think that is something that is worth while preserving and worth while building upon.

When I talk to members of your task force they say, "There is really not much we can do." It is a fact of life that gasoline costs $5 a gallon in many of those northern communities. Bread will cost anywhere from $2 to $2.50 a loaf depending on where it is bought and how it is flown in.

I am sure the minister has had some discussions with members of the tax force. So that we do not come up dry, do not come up empty, I wonder if he is prepared to broaden the terms of reference for that task force. I am afraid if we do not, it will be a meaningless exercise. It will be regurgitating things we already know, things we have already told them, because anybody who cares about that problem has had some input with that committee.

Since it is very difficult to subsidize transportation in the north, we need to make sure the benefit of that subsidy gets to the people it is designed to help. The minister has said he subsidizes transportation costs via the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. He worked at it for two years, but it did not help the people it was designed to help. It helped the carrier but it did not help the consumer. We have to come up with a scheme that is going to assist the people who are most disadvantaged by the present way of doing business.

I can see the minister making notes, and he is going to say: "Yes, air carriers are not the only solution to the north. Let us talk about a northern roads system or a winter roads system where we can rely on the transportation of nonperishable but bulk commodities over these roads in the winter to cut down on the cost of summer transportation."

I hope my friend the member for Rainy River will listen to this, because I know I have heard him speak about a different approach to assisting people in the north. I want to refer to a study done by Frank Oberle. He is the member of Parliament for the Prince George-Peace River district. He is a Tory at the federal level. He engaged a researcher to do this study, which is called Equity and Fairness: A New Approach to Northern Development. I cannot believe I was the only one who got a copy of this; I am sure the minister must have a copy, and maybe the member for Rainy River might even have a copy of it.

Mr. Oberle is the member for Prince George- Peace River and he talks about northern development and an indexed northern income allowance.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Excluding the members.

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

Granted, it is at the federal level that he is talking. Obviously, this is not something that could be undertaken only by the province; I do not think it is even something that could be undertaken only by the federal government, but I think it is another approach. Perhaps you could broaden the terms of reference for this task force and have them look into that. If we cannot subsidize transportation -- maybe we should to some extent be subsidizing the transportation of passengers and goods in the north -- maybe we should be looking into all-weather roads, or at least a winter road system, for purposes that the minister and I know would work to some extent.

I commend to members for their reading the scheme developed by this federal Conservative member. He calls it an indexed northern income allowance. He says:

"It is fair. It will compensate northerners for their hardships. It will resolve problems created by Revenue Canada's recent change in tax policy. It will help stabilize and increase the northern labour force. It will give all northern taxpayers, not just an elite few, the income supplement they deserve.

"An indexed northern income allowance will encourage Canadians to move north, but it will not cause large-scale industrial development. Granting northerners a larger tax deduction will put more money into their pockets, thus increasing their effective demand for goods and services and creating more opportunities for small businesses and entrepreneurs. Economic development resulting from this increase in effective demand will respond to the needs and desires of northerners, and their values will be reflected in their purchases and investments."

"An indexed northern income allowance will give northerners greater equity and, more than any other economic policy could, will promote efficient economic development in accordance with the values and aspirations of northern residents."

That is the only reference I will make to this study, but I commend it to the minister. There are many good ideas; there is a lot of thought; a lot of research has gone into it. It may be appropriate, after you have had an opportunity to look at this report and discuss it with your people under the gallery, to see whether or not we could broaden those terms of reference and see whether that is at least another alternative to the relatively narrow guidelines handed down to the task force looking into the high cost of transportation and consumer goods in those remote northern communities north of the 50th parallel.

4:20 p.m.

In connection with this, and while I am talking about those communities north of the 50th parallel, I want to commend to the minister and his advisers the district land use planning report of the Ministry of Natural Resources, which gives population projections between now and the year 2000. At a time when we are having great difficulty holding our own in most of the well-established communities in northern Ontario, I found these population projection statistics put out by the Ministry of Natural Resources, for a variety of reasons we all know so well, but even at that, quite startling.

Let us look at the population projection to the year 2000 for the Geraldton administrative district. In 1976, the population north of the Albany River, just in the Geraldton district, was 1,902 souls. They figure by 1985 there will be 2,630. By 1990 there will be 3,065. By 1995 there will be 3,500, and by the year 2000 there will be 3,935 people. That is over 100 per cent between 1976 and the year 2000.

South of the Albany River in the Geraldton administrative district of the Ministry of Natural Resources, the population in 1976 was 7,228. In 1985 it will be 9,054. In 1990 it will be 9,624, and in 1995 it will be 13,694. By the year 2000 they predict it will be 17,934, which is not quite 100 per cent, but almost 100 per cent.

I am wondering if the Ministry of Natural Resources shares those figures with the minister or does someone in his ministry seek out these figures? Are his staff as impressed with them as I am? Obviously, if they are even close in their population projections, now is the time we should be planning for that very dramatic increase in population.

In that area, particularly north of the Albany River, I do not think we are going to build a sophisticated road structure. I also do not think it is going to be economical to exploit the timber resources in the area much north of the Albany River. It is not going to be viable to ship those resources all the way down to Sioux Lookout, Dryden, Thunder Bay and the other well-established mill towns. What are we going to do with the people who are going to be up there?

I think it is far too idealistic and unrealistic to suggest that we will be able to integrate those people as they come along. We have not had much success up to now. We see the stance taken, particularly by the group in Treaty 9, who are going to try to paddle their own canoe to a much greater extent than is possible now.

Is the minister aware of the statistics? Does he even believe them?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You are kidding. No.

Mr. Stokes: You do not believe them?

Right now, they are having open houses hosted by the Ministry of Natural Resources and these are the kinds of statistics they are trotting out and putting up on the wall by way of geographic and demographic studies for all the people up there. If they do not have validity, if they are unrealistic, if they do not make any more sense than the garbage being put out by the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment, let us ignore them and get on with the business of doing the kinds of things that I know the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Pope) is interested in doing.

They are trotting out statistics like this. The Coureur de Bois, the little newspaper out of Longlac, went to the trouble of reproducing these statistics. I did not just get it out of the district land-use planning document, or propaganda as you would probably call it. These things are being reproduced in the local newspapers up there and unless they are refuted, people have a right to assume this is what is likely to happen.

Let me get back to the overall point I was trying to make. This minister and this ministry have gained a good deal of credibility in the north because you have been an advocate on Hydro rates, of extending TVOntario's services and an advocate on behalf of people in unorganized communities. You have even assisted the organized communities in infrastructure with water, sewage and industrial parks, wherever it seems justified.

But I think you also have a commitment. When you see statistics like this being trotted out by the Ministry of Natural Resources, you should say, "Come on, you guys, pull up your socks and give us some real data."

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You don't believe that either.

Mr. Stokes: Well, you are in a better position. You have a staff of literally dozens of people around you. I have just one secretary downstairs, Cynthia, who does the work of 10 people --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You have the same crystal ball as I have.

Mr. Stokes: But you have the resources and I think you have a responsibility to have some input.

If the Ministry of Natural Resources is saying one thing and the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment is saying something else, or in many cases saying nothing at all, having the world pass it by, we have to rely upon you and your ministry to give us the guidance and the statistical data that will allow us to plan for the future so that 15 or 20 years down the road, in the year 2000, we can say, "We were ready, we have made maximum benefit of all the opportunities available to us socially, economically and culturally." If you do that, this will truly be a Ministry of Northern Affairs.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In response to the member for Lake Nipigon, I appreciate his comments with respect to TVOntario. As I said earlier, we all share that common feeling of satisfaction as we move into a no-charge, good service situation across northern Ontario.

4:30 p.m.

The honourable member made some reference to economic development and our thrust in the northern Ontario rural development agreement. I have a copy of the Northern Ontario Business magazine here in my hand. As I said a few moments ago, it highlights the capital spending in the foreseeable future for northern Ontario of $6 billion. If any of the northern Ontario members have not received a copy of that particular paper, I will make sure they receive one. It relates directly to what is happening in northern Ontario. I want to commend Northern Ontario Business for pulling all those facts and figures together and making us aware of what really is happening right across the north.

Sometimes we in northern Ontario are our own worst enemies, crying wolf and crying poverty and not realizing what really is happening around us. I might say this particular newspaper is a progressive, positive one. For a change we have a progressive, positive newspaper, and it really brings home the facts of life as they relate to improvements right across the north.

I should maybe read into the record one thrust we have been making. As I said in my early remarks, in economic development our thrust has been on a community by community basis. It is one we have responded to on an individual basis as the communities had the initiative to come forward. Just to give members an example, I have a letter before me dated April 28, 1982. It is directed to the Ministry of Northern Affairs and is from the township of Michipicoten. It reads:

"On behalf of the municipality, I would like to thank you for your contribution in guiding the economic opportunity investigation for the forest products industry conducted by Mr. Langais to its successful completion. In this regard, I would mention that the following resolution was passed at a regular meeting of the corporation of the township of Michipicoten held April 20, 1982 and that resolution reads:

"'That council of the corporation of the township of Michipicoten does hereby extend appreciation to the minister and to the staff of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, notably study management co-ordinator, Dr. A. A. Lupton, for their assistance in contributing to the successful completion of an examination of economic opportunities for the forest products industry in the township of Michipicoten.'"

That gives members an idea of what we are doing and, as I said to the member for Rainy River, we are doing that on an individual basis. We are getting the communities interested, getting initiatives stirred up within each community and then going in with experts like Dr. Lupton and with financial resources, and pulling together an economic strategy. We hope to see some economic benefits flow from that thrust.

Just to give some idea of the economic development studies we have done and the assistance we have given to date, we are working with Armstrong. We have done the Atikokan study, the Gore Bay waterfront study, Ignace economic development strategy, Nipigon economic development strategy, Sudbury economic opportunities, Sudbury land reclamation, and Wawa economic opportunity study.

We are working with the Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers of Commerce on the northern Ontario rural development agreement, which I will talk about in a moment. Even in Red Lake, we have assisted with the fish-packing plant in that particular community. That is just on the industrial side. We also deal with tourism and a few other things related to farming and so on.

I want to try to spell out to honourable members what NORDA is all about. Members will recall we signed this agreement back in March 1981 with some little difficulty. The federal government had been playing games with the province for six or eight months. We finally talked it into --

Mr. Stokes: That's the one you wanted to sign in Timiskaming and you had to go to Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That's the one. I wanted to sign it in Thunder Bay and the federal member from Sudbury, the Minister of State for Mines, was in Thunder Bay on that particular day and she said, "No. If you want to sign it, you will come to Ottawa." So I had to take two days out of my tough campaign --

Mr. T. P. Reid: So it pushed you over. If you had been away three more days, you would have won by a larger margin.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- and fly to Ottawa to get that $17.5-million program signed on behalf of the people of northern Ontario. But we signed it in March 1981. It is a specific program dealing with a number of areas. It is jointly funded by Canada and Ontario on a 50-50 basis, and is in force from March 1981 until March 1986.

The total amount of the agreement, as I said, is about $17 million. In addition, there is a $1.5-million fund which is shared with the federal government through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, for projects which primarily involve or benefit status Indians.

The real intent of the agreement is to sustain, expand and diversify the economic base of the rural areas of northern Ontario. Its implementation will help to identify and encourage the establishment of new or expanded economic activities utilizing local resources and providing employment and increased income to local residents.

Basically, that means it applies to rural Ontario, not to the urban areas such as North Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins, Sudbury or Thunder Bay. It does not apply to the five major urban areas but to the entrepreneurs in rural Ontario, basically.

The honourable members know there are many small entrepreneurs in northern Ontario who can make widgets and make them extremely well, but when it comes to looking after the administration, to expanding or to marketing that particular product, they are at a loss. They really do not have the expertise in the particular field, yet they can produce widgets of the finest quality.

The applications that come to us reveal many problems. Our staff sit down with these people and try to work out the best possible approach to expanding or improving their operation. That takes considerable time; often we have to go back to them three or four times. The program itself is designed to pick up what falls between the Northern Ontario Development Corp. and all the other provincial or federal programs, and it takes time to administer it.

Mr. Stokes: I hope you are right in that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is supposed to. We think we are getting it into shape now. It has been taking us anywhere from three to four months to get a turnaround in some of these applications. The assistant deputy minister from Sault Ste. Marie, Mr. Herb Aiken, informs me they have streamlined the system because of their own internal concern.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It takes three and a half months.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, they can get it down to two and a half months, which is a major improvement; they have had the experience of one year's operations. They think with the streamlining of the system that they can move ahead and turn that time around.

It is their desire, really, not to take the funds of the individual, the small entrepreneur, who has to put up some of his dollars. But if there is a real risk, an outstanding risk that pulls him down completely and totally destroys him, then it does not make sense for us to put in extra funds. So, we try to be --

Mr. T. P. Reid: How many of these programs are transfers from one level to another rather than going to individuals? That is the part I do not understand. Why should the federal government give you money to run a project, or vice-versa?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They do not. They sit on this particular committee because the northern program is co-chaired by a good friend of yours, David Graham, and Mr. Aiken.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Are there no programs where you are funding them or they are funding you that come under NORDA?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is the forestry agreement.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Sure. You are giving money from that group to another government ministry such as the Ministry of Natural Resources, rather than to individuals or small corporations.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I do not know of a program where the federal government funds us and we, in turn, fund the individual. I do not know of a program without their involvement.

It is true that over the last several months we have heard the federal government complain it is not getting the visibility it would like in some of these programs where it is involved with Ontario. They would sooner go it alone. Well, so be it -- as long as there is not the duplication that might develop from this type of an approach, and that the priorities and direction set by the province are not totally interfered with by the federal government's going its own way.

The concern I have is the duplication and overlapping of priorities. If they go their own way in some of those programs, it is obvious to me if they do not keep in contact with us there may be an overlap and a waste of the taxpayers' dollars, which none of us here, of course, would want to see.

4:40 p.m.

The honourable member also mentioned the recent employment incentives program I announced for the local services boards. He thought we had not spelled out the criteria, but, as I mentioned to the member for Rainy River, we announced this to the northern affairs officers just last week. That information is going out to all the local services boards and to any group that we know would be interested.

Basically there are just two very simple points. The applicant or organization must be nonprofit; it cannot be a profitable operation. The project can be any project that provides a permanent physical improvement in the community and benefits the whole community. For anything that benefits the community -- be it beautification, repairs to the firehall, a new roof, a paint job; anything that cleans up, provided that it is labour intensive -- we will provide 25 per cent of the cost of materials through the isolated communities assistance fund. It is an excellent program, and I think anything they come up with --

Mr. Stokes: So it is a cleanup program.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh yes. If they want to build a firehall, if they are prepared to put up 75 per cent of the materials cost we will put up 25 per cent, and we will pay for 100 per cent of the labour costs under this program. The maximum of each application will be about $7,500 in labour. We are trying to keep it as simple as possible, as I said earlier, and to make it as flexible as possible to answer the employment needs of the small, unorganized communities.

The member for Lake Nipigon made some reference to my concern about the action that Ontario Hydro is taking before the Ontario Energy Board and my public announcement asking the Ontario Energy Board to consider its possible effects on northerners. I have said this in southern Ontario and I have said it in northern Ontario, and I am sure Hansard will prove me correct. The member for Nickel Belt said he thought that maybe I was going a little too far, that if I have a different opinion maybe I should meet with the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch), as I did. The Minister of Energy is very much aware of my concerns.

As you know, Hydro is making its appeal or pitch to the Ontario Energy Board. I felt that was the place to go, and I hope that the members opposite will also express their point of view to the Ontario Energy Board. I have to say I feel very strongly that the role we are playing on behalf of northern Ontario is the right one.

I was very interested to read in the press over the weekend that the leader of the New Democratic Party, who, as we know, does not hold a seat in this Legislature, made some comment that if the rates go up in northern Ontario then I should resign, and if they go down the Minister of Energy should resign. Well, you cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Van Horne: Maybe you should both resign.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You cannot have it both ways.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He is. He is sitting on the fence on the Inco strike too.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That's right. So it was very interesting to read that comment. Nevertheless, I do not make any apologies for standing up for northern Ontario. I can say that with a great deal of pride.

The other thrust we have made, particularly with small businesses -- I believe the member for Lake Nipigon made a comment with respect to small businesses -- is our assistance in the budget, a $60-million tax write-off over the next two years for some 250,000 small corporations in the province, many of which are in northern Ontario. I have had several calls from small businessmen who are incorporated in northern Ontario. Many of them have said to me, "It will mean $4,000 or $5,000 to me." That is not a lot, mind you, but at least it is a thrust that is there in these difficult economic times. And I am pleased that the Treasurer has recognized this, because the small businesses in the north are really the backbone of our small communities. To have that sensitivity is very important, and I want to commend the Treasurer publicly for taking that stand. I know it has received kudos and support from the business community right across this province.

The honourable member, I think rightly, mentioned the excellent dental service that we have in place in the Kenora-Rainy River ridings. I would point out to him that it was through the aggressiveness of the Kenora-Rainy River District Health Council that these problems were highlighted in the ridings of the member for Rainy River and myself, as they related to school children. They did an intensive study among the smaller schools in these two areas, compared them with the needs in other areas and found that the need was exceptionally great. The report was embarrassing. There is no question about it; it was really embarrassing.

When they came forward with this suggestion, we were glad to help with our resources. This is on top of the mobile dental coaches we funded through the Ministry of Health. Now that the program is in place, Dr. Les Armstrong is doing an excellent job, as the member for Rainy River will attest, in the Rainy River area and certainly in my area in going to the schools.

It is interesting that in some areas he uses the portable dental equipment in the mobile unit or he uses a vacant room in the school. The atmosphere lends itself exceptionally well for the young people who are attending that school and need dental care. There is not the shock of going into a highly sophisticated, strange dental unit which sometimes has an effect on those young children.

The service is working and I appreciate the member's desire to have it expanded. I have to tell the member it is a pilot project that we are going to watch and monitor exceptionally closely. The operation during the first year has been completely encouraging.

I would also point out to the member for Lake Nipigon that the Ontario Dental Association is working closely with us and the Ministry of Health in providing that special need in those remote areas of northern Ontario. Dr. Brad Holmes, who was the former president of the Ontario Dental Association, informed me just last week that he has something like 250 dentists who have signified their desire to contribute a specific amount of time going to the remote areas of northern Ontario to provide that needed service.

The Ontario Dental Association is responding to that important need. If the member would supply me with a list of the communities he would like them to visit, I would in turn pass it on to that group because they are most anxious to do their public service. I think I can put it as simply as that.

The member spent considerable time discussing a point that is near and dear to both of us; that is, the high cost of transportation and living in northern Ontario. I appreciate and share his concern. At the outset, I want to say the post office has done a service with respect to the loophole that existed in its system. The innovative and creative people of northern Ontario seized on this opportunity and have been benefiting from that service. There is no question about it.

I have heard just as a rumour that the last postal increase has narrowed that gap considerably. I was informed recently that if there is another postal increase of the same magnitude, it would put the postal service out of reach and the air service would be cheaper at that point. That is something we as northerners should watch carefully and closely.

I also point out the post office has instituted further restrictive requirements with regard to packages having to be identified on the outside and postage having to be put on the outside. It has made it a little more difficult, I think, in an effort to try to discourage some of those people from using the postal service --

Mr. Stokes: A bit of harassment.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: A bit of harassment, I suppose one could call it; I do not think it has really worked yet. I share that view of the member because I know he has been very much involved. We accept the responsibility to monitor closely any changes in the postal system.

4:50 p.m.

Finally, the member requested that we broaden the terms of reference to consider indexing northern income allowances. It may be a little late at this stage of the game to add that to our studies. Our studies have been going on for a year or two now and are in the final draft stage. I hope to have a copy of the report some time this summer. It could well be the thrust -- and we should maybe consider this -- of an examination separate from the one we are doing right now.

I mentioned to the honourable member that I have not seen or read the report to which he refers. I try to monitor all those that cross my desk. I even go so far as to read Dick Rohmer's thrust with regard to northern Ontario development to gain insight and ideas as to the direction in which we should be moving. But I will make it a point to follow up that point.

The member made some comment or suggestion about the Ministry of Natural Resources strategic land use plan and statistics flowing out of those discussion papers. I would say they are just that; discussion papers. He and I know they will be trotted out to the public now. They are going out for public comment and I am sure the broad list of communities MNR has indicated for these public meetings will show an excellent response.

While I am one who is always cautious about population projections, they are just that. They are guesstimates. I have seen what has happened in other parts of Ontario where we had population projections, even in southern Ontario, that have not been fully realized to this time. They are not statistics. I want to make that very clear. They are just guesstimates and projections. We will be making some examination of these figures, obviously, because we share an interest in northern Ontario as to where we are going. It does assist us in our planning process.

I am sure the comments they receive from the public in these open, public discussions will possibly change their attitude and maybe change some of those projections that we see trotted out in the very early stages of these strategic land use plans. So it may be premature to knock them down just yet.

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have responded to all the members' comments. If I have not, maybe I could pick them up at the next round.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman, there are a few other points I would like to raise with the minister and I hope I am not raising points that my colleague the member for Rainy River may have touched on when I was absent a few moments ago. I would like to go to those questions which may be answered rather briefly.

In the first vote, analysis and planning, there is a noticeable increase in the moneys estimated this year compared to last. I wonder if the minister could give us an indication as to why there is the large increase in that area?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, the 1981-82 authorized expenditure level was $1,272,800. This year's estimates were $1,613,000. There is a difference of $340,200. I will send the honourable member a copy of this report for his records. That is made up as follows: Salary awards for a full year, the annualized cost for the remainder of 1981-82, $53,200. The creation of centralized support function for the Toronto office and the regions in the new financial administrative services branch resulted in a transfer of funds from one of the other votes and items. We have installed a centralized support system there. The total of that centralized support system includes an affirmative action program of $20,000, and office support supplies, $47,000. But the big expenditure was on word processing and the teleconferencing we have.

Mr. Van Horne: Would the minister say the $20,000 for affirmative action was part salary or all services? Could he further break down that $20,000?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is part salary and part services.

Mr. Van Horne: In other words, there is a half-time salaried person there?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, part-time. If I could explain the word processing and teleconferencing structure we have now, I do not know whether the members were at the management by results 1982 program we had in the Macdonald Block, but the Ministry of Northern Affairs was used as an example of how communications can be moved quickly from various regions of northern Ontario.

The assistant deputy minister in Kenora can be in touch with the deputy minister in our office on a moment's notice through the teleconferencing system, and even through the system of typing a letter in Kenora, which comes off the system here in Toronto. The same applies to our office in Thunder Bay, to the assistant deputy minister's office in Sault Ste. Marie, and also to Sudbury. It all flows down to a central office in Toronto that answers the minister's requirements. I guess we are the most up-to-date and modern ministry in the government today in coming forward with this type of sophisticated communications package and word processing system. But that total package made up the difference I referred to. I will send the member the statement I just read to him.

Mr. Van Horne: I have another question. I am really leaning on my colleague from Lake Nipigon, who suggested this last hour should be a free-wheeling, open debate on any number of topics.

On Friday last the minister indicated that his ministry is, in many areas, a lead ministry. His colleague, the Minister of Education and Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson), was sitting beside him. On that occasion of Friday last, I wanted to read part of a letter while the Minister of Education was here, because it reflects a concern from a constituent in Val Caron. This letter reflects the attitude and concern of many people in other northern communities and, for that matter, in communities right across the province. With the minister's indulgence, I would like to go through this letter, which was addressed to our leader, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson). It says in part:

"I would like to formally protest against the withdrawal of provincial funding for noncredit continuing education programs. Adults of Ontario provide funds in the form of taxes to the Ministry of Education, thereby mandating that body to be responsible for meeting the lifelong educational needs of all Ontario citizens, young and old alike.

"We are guaranteed, by the Canadian Constitution, to be provided with 'essential public services of reasonable quality.' Due to the lack of commercial facilities, and the sparse population distribution of northern Ontario communities, the cultural and general interest noncredit programs, which have been developed through the continuing education policies of our community schools, have become 'essential' public services especially in the light of priority being placed by all levels of government on stress-reducing leisure activities. You do not have the right to remove these public services" -- and the letter goes on.

The point is that the seniors in Ontario, particularly those in northern Ontario, have come not only to enjoy but also to participate in what is generally known as Program 60. That is a program to involve those people at the age of 60 and beyond. That program, which was well received and well participated in by seniors, is in many instances in jeopardy. In my own community the board of education had a very active group and a very active program. They are now working with other factors within our community to try to make up what they lost when the Ministry of Education moved in this direction.

5 p.m.

We have some communities in the south which have a few more resources and a greater population base from which to draw. They would suffer from the ministry changing its policy and eliminating this program but these more affluent communities, with a broader base, may be able to make it up.

Does the minister, as the lead minister in a situation such as this, pick up some responsibility? Does he try to redirect people such as Mrs. Suzanne Lauzon, rural route 1, Site 8, Box 196, Val Caron, Ontario, who has written to our leader? What does he do to assist people like this? Does he redirect them, or does his ministry try to pick up the slack and accommodate programs such as this?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, in situations like Atikokan or Pickle Lake, as a lead ministry we are usually designated by cabinet to take on a specific responsibility. In this case we would examine the thrust of the lead ministry, which is the Ministry of Education, and examine its decision in our own shop to see whether there is an application unique to northern Ontario. If there is something special, unique or different being applied to northern Ontario that is not being applied to southern Ontario, then we would approach the ministry and bring this to its attention.

We have done this on many occasions when they have applied certain things or made certain moves that have been detrimental to people in northern Ontario. Because of our small population and our vast distances, we ask them to reconsider. We do not make any big noise about it; we go to them, privately and quietly, and say, "If that is the way you are going to go, this is what will happen in northern Ontario." Through co-operation and understanding, in many instances we are able to get them to turn it around.

We will have a look at this case to see whether there is some unique application to northern Ontario or whether it is a case of not being treated fairly and equitably. If that is the case, we will bring it to the attention of the ministry involved.

Mr. Stokes: Apropos of the minister's previous comments, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind him of a document that has just been released by his colleague the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), talking about the elderly in Ontario, An Agenda for the Eighties. She sent me a copy of this on May 21 as well as to the Minister of Northern Affairs, the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) and to Lawrence Crawford.

I remind the minister of a commitment he made to co-ordinate the needs for senior citizens, from which I quote the following:

"In small communities in the north it is difficult to provide a full range of services for the elderly, whether community or institutional, because of small numbers and great distances. Consequently, elderly residents have often had to move away from family and friends to obtain appropriate services. The province should seek to improve the range of services in small communities, particularly in northern Ontario. The impact would ensure that a range of services is provided in the small community and it would minimize the need of the elderly to leave the community for health maintenance and long-term care."

I sent the minister an excellent document prepared by a lady by the name of Ginger Ball in Geraldton, highlighting the specific need for extended care and chronic care beds in the community rather than having to uproot people and send them sometimes 100 or 200 miles away.

The minister had undertaken to act as an advocate, and his ministry was prepared to take on that responsibility. Of course, in the summary of recommendations contained therein it refers specifically to the Ministry of Northern Affairs, along with the ministries of Community and Social Services, Health and Municipal Affairs and Housing, and it says the province should give priority to the development of co-ordinated service delivery to remote northern communities.

I just want to know whether the commitment made by the minister is going forward and whether there are funds in this fiscal year to provide services similar to the ones that were identified and argued for so persuasively by the report, a copy of which I sent the minister. It falls right in line with the recommendations contained in this report. The chairman of this task force on ageing was Bryce Harper. And members John Nywening, Mary Louise Gaby, David Bogart and Glen Peppiatt.

I am just wondering whether the minister can make the commitment that those services will be provided. I do not want to get off the track; I have two more items I want to talk about, but I just wanted to put that in when my colleague the member for London North was talking about the problem of ageing and the provision of services in the north.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member bringing up that subject, because it is one that is very close to us in this ministry. Dr. Fergal Nolan, as the member knows, has been working for some considerable time within the staff of three ministries. In fact, he was chairman of the staff task force that brought forward the recommendation in the report to which the member referred. It was drafted and put together within our ministry, and it was brought forward and adopted by that committee.

I want to recognize the support I received from the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch). She was most supportive of that thrust in northern Ontario, having had full knowledge of the special problems we have in the small communities and the vast distances we are located from the major homes for the aged. It was her support and the support of the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) that allowed us to make the announcement in the throne speech that these units would be developed in the smaller communities.

We have identified about 25 communities across the north that we think will apply for and could qualify for the extended care programs. These will see 20-unit facilities attached to hospitals, using the same kitchen, nursing and laundry facilities and the same administration staff, thereby providing the opportunity for these senior citizens to remain in those small communities. I think that has been the thrust. We have seen it in Terrace Bay and Hornepayne.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt the minister while he is on that theme? The minister made reference to 20 different communities. A former candidate of ours, Mr. Ernie Massicotte from Algoma-Manitoulin, sent me some correspondence asking about the Espanola community and what was happening there. I believe the sitting member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) made reference to this during the last campaign. The question put to me is, what is the status of that on-again, off-again facility in Espanola?

5:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I will answer that question, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps I could complete my answer to the member for Lake Nipigon, who asked whether we have funds in our budget for his program this year.

I have said publicly, and I believe I said some time during the examination of these estimates, that while we do not have any new funds from the Treasurer identified for this program, we are shifting. Honourable members will see a shift in our thrust. It has happened over the past two years. We have gone more to the social field, with the ambulance program, the bursary program and the dental coach program. We have shifted to the social areas and the social requirements of northern Ontario.

We will continue to do that; so there will be less emphasis on such things as sewers and water. In other words, we will not be coughing up as much as we have in the past with the Ministry of the Environment, which will have to carry more of that responsibility. We will take those funds and put them into what we think is a very important program.

We hope to get two or three off the ground this year. We have applications or indications from 16 communities that are interested. As the member knows, we are putting up five sixths of the capital cost and the local community or the hospital board puts up one sixth. It will be the responsibility of the local community to raise those funds, or about 17 per cent. It is a sizeable amount of money, but all the communities we have talked to are enthusiastic about it. They see no problem with raising their portions and it gives them an involvement. We think we can satisfy the needs of those 20 or 25 communities in a five-year program.

We are being open and flexible on the criteria. The flow will be that the hospital board will make application to the Ministry of Northern Affairs. We in turn will look at it from a needs point of view and from our point of view; then we will pass it back to the Ministry of Health, which will go to the district health council. The district health council has the responsibility to prioritize the local requirements. Once it has prioritized the local requirements, it goes back to the Ministry of Health. It makes the application for the architectural drawings, which are approved by the Ministry of Health. Then we fund it and away it goes.

I think it is fair to say that we do not have the expertise within the Ministry of Northern Affairs to look at those kinds of things, but the Ministry of Health people are doing it all the time in relation to hospitals. It was obvious that was the route to go. We hope we will not have too many delays in getting them going. We are anxious to get a few in place, to get the visibility there and to provide encouragement for other communities to take the responsibility of going forward with it.

The member for London North very appropriately brought up the question of Espanola during this discussion. I am pleased the member for Algoma-Manitoulin is in his seat. He brought in a private member's bill in this Legislature, which was supported by all members of the House, to develop a special type of facility in northern Ontario that would answer all those specific needs in a one-unit complex. While I am sure the honourable member would like to speak for himself, I am told there will be a formal announcement shortly with respect to that facility.

He has done a tremendous amount of work himself. He has singlehandedly walked Espanola's request through the various ministries of government. When the final announcement is made in detail, he will be the one who should properly receive all the bouquets for a job well done. It will answer the needs of the people of Espanola. As we would say on this side of the House, it is keeping the promise.

Mr. Haggerty: It is the only one.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No. He made that commitment as he has made other commitments in his riding; they have always been lived up to, because he is a man of responsibility and integrity. He looks after his people exceptionally well. I was pleased to be part of the discussions we had with the member for Algoma-Manitoulin. From that came the spinoff of the program announced in the throne speech.

As northerners, we can take some pride that we have a program that was designed -- dreamed up, I suppose one might say -- planned and made to fit the requirements of northern Ontario in co-operation with the district health councils, particularly the Cochrane and Kenora-Rainy River district health councils. They played very important roles in bringing together this particular program. I compliment all those who were involved.

I am looking forward to the day when we, as members, can be up there cutting the ribbons on those new facilities which will see our senior citizens living in the communities they have lived in and enjoyed for so many years and do not want to move away from. There is no question about that.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up on the comments of the two members on this side and to congratulate the minister on finally providing something for the senior citizens in northern Ontario.

I want to comment on the fact that he is going to provide extended care services adjoining the hospitals. I think he has found out some of the difficulties people are facing in southern Ontario, where we have nursing homes provided by the private sector.

The Niagara Peninsula, for example, is an area where we are having some difficulties. The private sector provides nursing home care or extended services to the elderly citizens in that community. Because there is at present a shortage of beds in that area, we find a procedure has been allowed by the Ministry of Health -- and I hope it does not go from southern Ontario to northern Ontario -- in which the private sector is involved in nursing home care, extended care services. The licences now are being put on the market to be auctioned off. The highest bidder will purchase a bed at a price of $10,000 to $20,000.

In the little community of Ridgeway, in the town of Fort Erie, the beds have been purchased by a larger home in St. Catharines, but the transfer of the beds --

Mr. Stokes: Which part of northern Ontario is that?

Mr. Haggerty: Just listen to this. I hope the member for Lake Nipigon does not get into the same problem we have down in our area, where these licences are being transferred from one community to another, a distance of 30 miles, which is considered a fair distance in the Niagara Peninsula. Elderly persons will be transferred to other facilities provided by different owners.

I tell the minister and the government that I detest the procedure allowing these beds to be auctioned off at a profit. A licence gives the right to continue with an operation; it is a privilege in a sense. It should not be transferred from one person to another who wants to enlarge a large complex of nursing homes in Ontario. In a sense, that could be restricted to one or two individuals who may have the capital and who can buy these beds at a particular price.

When this is done, and a price tag is put on these nursing home licences to transfer them, the end result is that the cost to the persons in these homes or to the families who have to pay the cost is passed on to the taxpayers. So we are actually not saving any money at all in allowing these licences to be transferred under the circumstances, and yet the Ministry of Health is permitting it, knowing full well it is causing difficulties in certain municipalities.

As the ministry is well aware, and I have to commend the minister again for assisting municipalities to become organized in northern Ontario, more services are going to be demanded by municipalities that establish themselves as corporations. I know full well that additional funding is going to be required from some government ministry, particularly the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

The minister is going to have to set aside more money than has been appropriated under his present estimates to provide the services other members have talked about where people from the southern part of the province seem to have everything going for them. I suggest the minister will have to establish more funding for those areas to provide the additional services required for newly formed municipalities.

I just bring those things to the minister's attention. We do have problems relating to extended care services, which are being severely damaged in southern Ontario. I suggest that the minister should be careful when he gets into this area. When we look to the private sector to provide that care, we need to be sure it is not being done to make a huge bundle of money at the taxpayers' expense, because that is what is happening in southern Ontario.

5:20 p.m.

The homes for the aged program in the regional municipality of Niagara has always done an exceptionally fine job for senior citizens in that area through their foster care program. Aged people are placed with persons who may want to care for four or five individuals. This is an approach the minister should be looking at in northern Ontario. There may be people who have large enough homes that they can take in four or five individuals under the homes for the aged program. They would be providing a needed service to senior citizens who are mobile and can manage themselves but who have difficulty living by themselves. This is an area the minister should be looking at for smaller communities.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the member's contribution to these estimates and his concern about the future of the nursing care program.

The program we have devised for northern Ontario means these facilities will be, as he correctly point out, attached to hospitals. Such projects will be funded five sixths by the Ministry of Northern Affairs and one sixth by the hospital boards and will be operated by the hospital boards. The per diem allowance which the Ministry of Health will provide to the board will look after operating costs, but there will not be any private involvement; the facility really will be an extension of the hospital itself. I think the member's fear can be set aside, because there will be no question of the beds actually going up for sale.

I want to put one thing on the record as a matter of interest to my colleagues from northern Ontario. We have some exceptionally fine homes for the aged across northern Ontario that have served our communities exceptionally well. There is no question or argument about that. But we have a growing elderly population in northern Ontario, and we have some statistical information to prove that.

I am going to make sure the member gets a copy of that report, which was prepared within our ministry. It will give him some indication as to where we are going in the next several years in caring for the ageing population. It was that report which prompted us to move as quickly as we did.

The point I want to make is that the contractual arrangement the municipalities have with the homes for the aged will not be affected one iota. In other words, if the town of Sioux Lookout, as an example, has a contractual arrangement with the home for the aged in Kenora to pay a certain part of their operating costs, whatever that may be, it will remain intact even though they will have, it is hoped, 20 beds tied to the hospital in Sioux Lookout.

The community responsibility of the Kenora Home for the Aged will remain intact, as will that of the town of Dryden. I have made that very clear publicly. We cannot risk putting that institution into financial jeopardy because we are building a facility in, say, Dryden or Sioux Lookout to look after our senior citizens who require extended care.

Studies show that we can provide service locally and look after the requirements of the homes for the aged, the larger institutions that are operated by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I want to make it very clear that we are not putting those in jeopardy.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I want to commend to the minister's reading another document which was on my desk this morning -- it was copied to the minister -- and which was prepared by the Ontario Native Women's Association. It is extremely well done. The report itself was prepared by Mildred Barrett, whom the minister knows quite well; she worked with the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment until she saw the light.

I am really impressed by their work, which is titled The Ontario Hydro Little Jackfish River Power Development: Its Possible Effects on the Economy, Environment and Communities of the Lake Nipigon Area. They call it a pre-action assessment.

It is extremely well done. It was done not only by consulting with their own organization, the native women's association, but also in consultation with the Armstrong Métis and Nonstatus Indian Association and the treaty Indians on the Gull Bay reserve, with the Commercial Fishermen's Association of Lake Nipigon and with those members of the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association who earn their livelihood from the orderly exploitation of the fish and wildlife and tourist potential around Lake Nipigon.

This is addressed to Mr. Chris Taylor, who is the senior communities relations officer of Ontario Hydro, the chap who is responsible for conducting open houses to apprise people of what is going on with regard to the potential for the development of hydroelectric generation on the Little Jackfish River.

This is another way in which this minister and this ministry can get involved in co-ordinating something that is going to have far-reaching effects environmentally and economically, even socially. The minister himself knows what happened. I was touring part of the province with him a few years ago and we saw the damaging effect of the damming of waters for hydroelectric generation. I remember the minister and I talking about the ravages around Lac Seul. You can still see the effects of the diversion of water that went on 30, 40, and 50 years ago.

If one looks at the Ogoki diversion that made it possible to generate electricity on the Nipigon River, one can see the flushing and silting effect, the bank erosion and the detrimental effect on the spawning beds around Lake Nipigon, particularly in Ombabika Bay.

They are going to use the same river, because the Ogoki River diversion comes down the Jackfish River. Ontario Hydro is talking about operating this flow of water for 10 hours a day, then shutting it down for 14 hours and then activating it again for 10 hours. It is going to have this flushing and silting effect, this pea-soup effect, in Lake Nipigon.

All these not only are concerns of the Ontario Native Women's Association but also affect the livelihood of their husbands, whether they are commercial fishermen or engaged in tourist activities. They have some really legitimate concerns.

5:30 p.m.

I want to read a few of the conclusions reached. There are some recommendations; that is why I am bringing this to your attention. I think this is where your ministry and you personally could provide yeoman service to make sure there is adequate consultation before the fact, rather than having to take corrective measures which it may be impossible to take after the fact.

It says: "It is to be expected that Ontario Hydro, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment will be aware of the very real concerns of the people around Lake Nipigon in regard to the proposed hydroelectric development on the Jackfish River.

"It is also to be expected that these responsible agencies of the province will take into account the accumulated knowledge and experience of the people who know Lake Nipigon best, the commercial fishermen and the tourist operators.

"Undoubtedly, the expertise and the scientific and technical engineering skills of those involved in studies preparatory to the launching of this project will identify and resolve many of the problems addressed in this report before the decision as to whether to proceed with the project is made.

"There is no longer any advantage to any sector of the society of the province, whether ordinary citizen, government agency or crown corporation, in ignoring the environmental ramifications of such projects. Facts are facts. They are better faced and forthrightly dealt with from the outset than ignored to the point where the whole provincial community is the poorer and presented with yet another bill of expense, not just in terms of the financial cost of repairing or attempting to repair the damage done, but in terms of further deteriorated provincial patrimony, an alienated and distrustful populace and an economically and socially disrupted community, not to mention the decimation of two presently productive industries which make a contribution reaching far beyond the shores of Lake Nipigon."

It is a very well-prepared report. I am asking this minister to make himself aware of that so he can be the vehicle whereby there will be adequate consultation. If they need a few dollars to make a presentation to Ontario Hydro, I do not know why they would have to do any better than this. It is an excellent document, but if they require it in the overall consultative process, I am sure the minister will be just as impressed with the quality of the work done on that report as I was.

I want to get into another area. This was sent up by my secretary since I left my office. It gets back to something else. The minister talked about the beneficial effect of the budget for northern communities and a lot of small businesses in northern communities. There are always two sides to every coin and two sides to every argument. The minister is saying there are some small businesses throughout the province, a good many of them in northern Ontario, which benefit as a result of the budget. I want to give you the other side of the coin:

"Dear Jack:

"Enclosed you will find a protest list objecting to the tax attached to alterations and repairs done to clothing received for dry cleaning, also a letter I received from the editor of the Nipigon Gazette, Mary Gordon.

"I wish to point out this unjust tax is one dimension. Seventy-five per cent of the repairs I do" -- and this is from the lady who operates this dry cleaning establishment -- "are on children's clothing which is not taxable to purchase new. However, because of the rising cost of new clothing and tightening of the belt, many of my customers choose to repair and make-do another season.

"The tax on laundry soap is so unjust and creates another problem for me. I have a soap dispenser in my laundromat for which, I explain, I purchase one case of Tide, 200 little individual boxes, and the cost is $53. For each box I receive 30 cents, times 200; I receive $60. This $7 does not cover the handling or the freight.

"Early in May I purchased a new coin chute, which will take 35 cents for a box of Tide: 35 cents times 200, which is $70. My cost per case is $53." She has a profit of $17 for handling and shipping.

"I now receive $17 above cost per case, but have the price of the new coin chute to absorb, which was $45 plus tax. I really don't think laundry soap is a luxury and should be taxed. Do you? Would you please bring these objections to the attention of the honourable Frank Miller? Thank you.

"Yours truly, Maureen Dampier, Nipigon Coin Laundry and Dry Cleaning."

This is what Mary Gordon has to say about the way in which you people have chosen to try to gain your revenues:

"I understand there will be now a sales tax levied by you on all repairs done during dry cleaning, and I would like to voice my objection. The expansion of sales taxes to cover items previously untaxed is to my mind a regressive move, a move that results in heavier taxation on lower-income families. Everybody occasionally needs a button sewn on or a rip repaired, regardless of whether they earn $10,000 or $100,000 a year.

"It is understandable that government must find ways to increase revenues to cover fast-growing deficits. However, I don't believe that expanding the sales tax is the correct method. Our income tax system is at least relatively progressive. If we need to raise more revenue it should be raised via income so that the money comes from those who can best afford it. Loopholes should be investigated and blocked up. High-income families should be providing more of the financial backbone of our provincial and federal budgets.

"Raise my taxes when my income goes up, but please don't bug me with the nickels and dimes of small sales taxes that generate more jobs in the civil service and end up costing us all more in the long run.

"Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion."

I have got a protest signed, I would say, by not quite 100 people who are similarly concerned just in the town of Nipigon alone.

There are some small businessmen who benefit from certain parts of the budget, but it works hardship on a lot of other people in a kind of mean and niggardly way, just pecking away at their little nickels and dimes every time they go and buy a bar of soap or some toothpaste or something of that nature. I just happen to think, as Mary Gordon does, that there is a much more progressive way of collecting these taxes.

We do not deny that it takes a lot of money to provide the services that are the responsibility of this level of government, but I think it was very mean of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and anybody who agrees with him to have used that vehicle, a broadening of the sales tax on essential items such as toothpaste and laundry soap. There was a better way of doing it, and I just thought I had to bring that to your attention. Those are the two things I had in mind for the moment.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I certainly will consider the request by the member for Lake Nipigon with respect to the Jackfish River hydro proposal. My staff tell me that Mr. Taylor of Ontario Hydro will be meeting with our staff some time later this month on a number of issues right across northern Ontario, so we will watch that very carefully.

I think there may well be a role that the Ministry of Northern Affairs can play in that particular development because we know what it means to that area, particularly Armstrong. There is no question about it: We are watching that very closely, as I said earlier in my remarks, because the diesel generating units are coming to a period when they may have to be replaced. It may well be that this is an area we should be involved in, so I give you that commitment now.

I am not here to debate the budget, but I am here, of course, to support the Treasurer. I just have to say to you in passing that while some may think he made the wrong decision, as Mary Gordon has pointed out -- "nickels and dimes" -- I think it is easier to deal with nickels and dimes than to deal with dollars, the large dollars, as Newfoundland has done or Quebec or Manitoba, to increase the sales tax right across the board.

While that may look neat and simple and would answer the need, the taxpayers would be paying a lot more if that was applied directly right across the board. I have talked to many people who told me they always thought they were paying sales tax on toothpaste and shaving cream. They never dreamed they were not. They just took it for granted they were. It has been highlighted now by some politicians at Queen's Park and has been brought to their attention.

5:40 p.m.

If one looks at what the Treasurer has done in the last 10 years, he has brought back into the system what other Treasurers had pushed out. He just brought such things back in and it seems to me there should not be a hue and cry about it. The members are asking for new programs, they are asking for improvements, they are asking the Treasurer to do certain things. Even I ask the Treasurer for more funds on a pretty regular basis, so I feel obliged to support him when he has to go out and find those dollars. It is not an easy task. It is not one that any politician enjoys, raising taxes or finding ways to do it, but I have to say to the members I think his judgement was the right one and considering the times, he brought in a very positive budget.

It did things for northern Ontario. The $19.2 million that flowed from his budget will directly affect the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes). I believe a couple of contracts out of that $19.2 million were accelerated because of the budget. It is a lot of money. I do not think we will get it back in the nickels and dimes that will apply through the tax on toothpaste. It will not come back to us that quickly, I can assure the members of that. Nevertheless, we are reaping the benefits in northern Ontario. The Treasurer gave us $500,000 for the employment program in the unorganized areas, funds that had to be raised. I was glad when he responded to our request for additional funds, but he has to find the funds. I think the route he has taken is the one that was the least painful right across the board.

Mr. Stokes: I am talking about nickel and diming everybody who wants some repairs done at the dry-cleaners, but the net result of the budgetary policies is not nickels and dimes for the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) or the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe). Let me tell you what the results are.

The results of the calculations are as follows: Ontario families will pay in taxes $15.7 million more for detergent; $2.7 million more for dishwasher detergent; $7 million more for laundry soap and bleach; $4.3 million more for fabric softener; $3.7 million more for polishes and waxes; $3.6 million more for scouring pads; $8 million more for facial tissue; $10.5 million more for toilet tissue; $16 million more for plants, flowers and shrubs; $6.3 million more for toilet soap and shaving soap; $2.1 million more for shaving cream; $6.5 million more for personal deodorants; $7.7 million more for toothpaste; $4.9 million more for single issue magazines; and $4.6 million more for educational supplies.

The government is nickel and diming poor, little, old ladies who are going to the laundromat, but it is not nickels and dimes by the time the government gets its grubby hands on it. It is big money.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of concerns. Maybe they do not fit into the direct responsibilities of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, but I would like to make these points. There are many people from southern Ontario, young farmers, who are moving to the north to help develop and open it up. We had a young sheep farmer from my riding who moved up north last year with 200 or 300 ewes. He bought several hundred acres to begin a new life. We have had many other farmers moving into the Matheson area as beef farmers. I was talking to them just recently.

I was wondering if the minister has been involved in the food terminal. What responsibility he is taking to try to assist agriculture in that area. I was speaking to this young farmer's wife only on Friday. Their names are Harley and Carol Phibbs. They have 150 head of beef cattle. They have been meeting on a regular basis trying to organize the food terminal and to get it off the ground. The indications were that they need more inspection services. Fertilizer is being trucked in as they progressively farm more intensively. Does the minister have anything to report? Is he trying to assist that industry and help these young farmers?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I welcome the contribution from the member for Haldimand-Norfolk. I think it is very encouraging that he would show an interest in the efforts of the Ministry of Northern Affairs. I welcome him aboard, and appreciate his contribution.

Mr. Laughren: The minister's food problem is terminal.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We will look after that terminal.

In my earlier comments we did discuss the agricultural study we embarked on. That report is complete now. It is being re-examined by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and my own ministry. We will be issuing a guideline brochure to the agricultural community in northern Ontario, assisting them and directing them in the direction we think they should be going. The report, if memory serves me correctly, pointed out that the food terminal we had originally anticipated or the concept we had, would not prove economically feasible in that area. There are other things that may flow from that report such as something similar to a food processing plant in the major urban areas of northern Ontario.

There is also some emphasis on self-sufficiency to stop the importation of products we could grow in northern Ontario. Many vegetables could be grown locally in the areas of Thunder Bay, Timmins or North Bay, to have an import substitution program in place.

Under the northern Ontario rural development program, the assistant deputy minister just informed me that over 600 applications have been approved to date with respect to improvements to small farming units in northern Ontario. We are serious about our involvement in the agriculture community. We have the total support of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food from the minister on down. In the next several years, I think members will see a decided improvement and a thrust in creating a larger and more supportive agricultural community in northern Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: I am glad I have been able to get into these estimates for a few moments to talk about the area of the province I love and respect very much and where I have lived all my life. I want specifically to ask the minister and his officials if they can let me know why there has been no local services board for Lappe and area yet.

I recall there was an organizational meeting that first took place on March 11, 1981. That was some 16 months ago now. At that meeting there was a unanimous decision by the residents in attendance at the meeting that they would like to go forward to establish a local services board. As the minister will recall, March 11, 1981 was during the course of the provincial election. It was amazing to find unanimity in the meeting. During such times it is always amazing to find unanimity amongst people of all stripes.

I was at the meeting. The Conservative candidate was there. The Minister without Portfolio from Timmins was at the meeting unannounced. He just happened to show up. He just happened to fly into my riding during the course of the election campaign to show up for the meeting of 60 people in the Lappe area, who always have traditionally supported me and showed their good sense by continuing to do so during the realities of March 19.

The resolution was unanimous. There was one abstention on the vote. It was very clear that the people in that area really do want a local services board, leaving aside all kidding and inflammatory rhetoric about March 19.

There seems to me to be a very unusual length of delay, because the chairman of the meeting, Mr. Rinnie, really had not heard any response. On March 30, 1982, he wrote the following letter to the Northern Affairs officer in the Thunder Bay office. Because it puts it as concisely and as clearly as anything, I might read that into the record. It will only take me one minute, because it is a short letter.

5:50 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: Okay. There is one other person who wants to speak on this side, and we are going to take the vote at five to six.

Mr. Foulds: I understand that, but I understand that member comes from Renfrew North rather than northern Ontario.

The Deputy Chairman: Use your time. You have a moment so let us get as much as we can in.

Mr. Foulds: These are estimates, if I may say so --

Mr. Martel: Why are you going to take the vote at five to six?

The Deputy Chairman: As close to six as we can.

Mr. Foulds: It could be five after six. There have been speakers --

Mr. Martel: Just read the letter.

Mr. Foulds: "Dear Sir: Re: Local services board for Lappean area." By the way, that is an Anglicized misprinting by the post office in the first place.

Mr. Martel: I want to get on.

Mr. Foulds: I understand that my colleague the member for Sudbury East is anxious to get on and --

Mr. Martel: Read the letter.

Mr. Foulds: -- I understand he has been here on many occasions and not had this opportunity.

Mr. Martel: Read the God-damned letter.

Mr. Foulds: I am being torn. My colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) says I should not be anxious about --

Mr. Martel: You should sit down while you are ahead.

Mr. Foulds: Seriously.

"It was on March 11, 1981, that the organizational meeting for the purposes of establishing a local services board in the Lappe area was held. At that meeting, for which I acted as the chairman, the desirability of forming a services board was unanimous. Since the people presented such a clear mandate, I feel obliged to pursue the matter of the establishment of the services board. Since that initial meeting, nothing was heard concerning the above-mentioned until late last fall when your ministry received an objection to the formation of the services board. I contacted the ministry on numerous occasions this winter trying to determine when a meeting was going to be held with the objector, since I wished to be present at that meeting to outline the case for the establishment of a local services board.

"Apparently that meeting with the objector, Trout Lake Campers' Association, was held last week. I am of the opinion that those residents present at the organizational meeting were not properly represented. I will be contacting the Trout Lake Campers' Association representatives to ensure that they are aware of the intentions of those present at the organizational meeting. I have been informed that the Trout Lake Campers' Association has been given a deadline of April 30 to poll their members to determine if there is indeed an objection and then to reply to the ministry. Considering it has taken over one year to get where we are today, it would be in the best interests of the residents, as well as the ministry, to expedite this matter.

"I will be looking forward to hearing from you in early May of this year."

Then there is just this note to me:

"Dear Mr. Foulds: If you can be of any assistance in this matter, the residents of Lappe and area would certainly appreciate it. Was the formation of the MNA not supposed to ensure quick action on matters concerning citizens of the north?"

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, if I may reply just briefly to the honourable member, I will likely be writing him further on this issue, but we have encountered some unusual problems in this application, particularly relating to the boundaries as to who is in and who is out. The Trout Lake Campers' Association is actively involved but my staff tell me they think the question can be resolved very soon. In fact, they have a draft letter of acceptance and approval already prepared.

Mr. Foulds: During this process, surely it would have made more sense last fall when the objection was first received to have surveyed the campers, found out what the objection was and been in constant contact with the permanent residents who want the local services board.

Frankly, there is considerable suspicion in the area that there is deliberate delay on the part of Northern Affairs or some other ministry like Municipal Affairs and Housing because they want Gorham and Ware organized. They are worried about incorporation into the city of Thunder Bay. We have had correspondence about this before when we tried to get fire equipment assistance for the area.

What I want is a clear statement of government policy saying it is committed to the establishment of the local services board, that the residents of that area deserve it and that there will be a process whereby it is completed before next fall.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I hope to be able to respond to the member in writing within a week.

Mr. Foulds: I know the minister will be responding to me by letter within a week, but what I would like is a commitment from him that there will be a local services board established in that area and that it will be according to the terms of the resolution passed at that widely attended meeting which was widely advertised, including to the campers.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would point out that there is no problem with the establishment of the local services board. We are trying to establish the correct boundaries. The boundaries are the problem. Once we have that sorted out, there will be a local services board. It is plain and simple.

Mr. Conway: I want to draw to the attention of the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party that, whether or not he is aware of the fact, for purposes of the Legislative Assembly Act I am a northern member and therefore among other things receive the additional mileage allowance. I know he will be interested to hear that. I must say he is a more vigorous inquisitor this afternoon than he was on the national television service Saturday evening, but that is another matter.

I want to draw the minister's attention briefly to an ongoing concern and anomaly in Sabine township, a part of southwestern Nipissing which it is my pleasure to represent. This sees the main Hydro transmission corridor coming across from the Ottawa valley to the industrial heartland of southern Ontario, cutting that township in half by virtue of its size and presence and leaving the local residents with a situation whereby they can look at the substation, but have no opportunity to derive power from it or from any other line.

It is a township of at least 100 people, some of whom I will admit are seasonal residents, but many of whom are long-time permanent residents. They have a main transmission line operated by Hydro running right through their backyards and are not able to have any hydro. To this day, they are without electrical service. They were recently told by the Cobden office of Ontario Hydro that, unless they come forward with a $57,000 contribution, it will not be possible for the provincial utility to accommodate their understandable and justifiable need for that essential service.

I simply ask on short notice that the minister, through one of his staff people, try to acquaint himself with it. Mrs. Lavalley of rural route 1, St. Pierre Lake, is a very active proponent for this service on behalf of the local residents. It is something to which I feel they are entitled and I would ask that the ministry, through the North Bay office, try to do what it can to bring about the provision of support and service so the long-standing shortage of electrical supply to that township in the district of Nipissing in northern Ontario can and will be rectified.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would be prepared to do that.

Mr. Martel: In the case of the local services board in Estaire, something went amok there and I have written to the minister about it. Apparently it was formed, and there has been some objection.

I have asked if you can get staff in there, along with me if necessary, in order to try to get that resolved so that board does not go down the tubes. It is imperative that it be not jeopardized because of the objection. I hope the minister is prepared to send staff in there so that we can overcome those objections which are now before us, which could prevent a local service board from being firmly established.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I have just been informed that our legal people are looking into the problems associated with this. We hope to have them resolved in two weeks.

Vote 701 agreed to.

Votes 702 to 704, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman, while you are checking procedure, I want to remind the minister of the commitment that he made to the member for Lake Nipigon, to myself and to the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz). I am sure he agreed that the members of the Legislature should be taken on a tour of the north so that they may better acquaint themselves with the problems of the north.

Secondly --

The Deputy Chairman: It is on the record already, is it not?

Mr. Van Horne: But there is a related point and that is a reference made by the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), myself and the minister about the facility in or near Quebec City that he was going to take us to. I just want that to be on the record so that he can't back out of the commitment to take us to both places.

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

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.