ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
House in committee of supply.
ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I believe when we wound up a week or 10 days ago I was replying to the comments of the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) and the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes).
I believe I commented last on the log hauling problem in northwestern Ontario and pointed out to the House and to the honourable members that a committee had been set up by industry, labour and government. It came down with 69 recommendations, which we are looking through very carefully.
Many of those recommendations have already been implemented by the companies and the operators themselves; so I think we are on the right track. I think things are moving forward with respect to increased safety on our highways in relation to the hauling of pulpwood in northern Ontario. Of course, if it is not being done, we will take tougher measures to ensure it is done.
I believe the member for London North raised the question of the Rodger Allan report and the possible co-ordinating effort or the possible involvement of the Ministry of Northern Affairs with the Ministry of Education in trying to resolve some of the unique northern Ontario problems. I can report to the members that we have already begun staff discussions.
My staff has met on a number of occasions with the Ministry of Education staff in a preliminary way to look at ways and means we could become involved. Nothing concrete has been resolved as yet. I hope to meet with the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) by the end of the year, and if not early in 1984, to examine further any possibility of involvement by our ministry.
I believe the honourable member went on to make some comments with respect to the natural resources centre that the government has seen fit to fund with the University of Toronto, which really brings together a large number of the research branches of that major learning institute under one roof.
I think the best way to explain that would be to put on the record a letter that was directed to Dr. Henry Best, president of Laurentian University in Sudbury, by the then president of the University of Toronto, Dr. Jim Ham. I think if I read that into the record it would clear the situation up and give a broader view of the need for this facility, which is being developed in co-operation with those universities in northern Ontario. The letter is dated June 30, 1983, and is directed to Dr. Henry Best, president of Laurentian University in Sudbury.
It reads: "I do apologize that we have not been able to get together to have a discussion about the University of Toronto's initiatives relating to the natural resources of the province in the context of the province's and industry's commitment to enable us to build a natural resources centre. You can appreciate, I think, that my last few days in the university have absorbed more than all the attention that I am capable of giving.
"I must say that I rejoice in the support that has been given to us after more than five long years of planning and working on this matter. There are a few things that you should understand at this point. First is that the natural resources centre is a building complex in which the department of botany, the faculty of forestry, the departments of geology and geography, and the institute of environmental studies are being brought together under one roof.
"There are two grounds for bringing them together. The first is that they have been accommodated in ancient and increasingly useless buildings, such as a mining building built in 1905. Hence the building complex that is now under way has been a necessity for the university because of its aged buildings.
"The second essential point is that six years of planning have enabled the university to understand that there were important interdisciplinary objectives to be achieved in bringing these units together in a coherent manner in one place. We have resolved to build a stronger interactive project between botany and forestry, centred on forest biology and forest management.
"I would note that this program will utilize the staff resources that we have and the planning for the centre will guide us in shaping replacement of staff over the long term. Likewise, the bringing together of environmental studies, geography and geology has provided a means whereby we can get a coherent focus on the earth sciences as related in particular to the utilization of the land.
"The understanding of the occurrence of mineral deposits --"
Mr. Stokes: That is garbage and you know it.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Wait a minute. These are the studies that are going on at the University of Toronto.
Mr. Stokes: That is going to go over to Guelph.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, it is not. The president of the University of Toronto has clearly stated it in his letter to Dr. Best.
Mr. Stokes: He doesn't know what he is talking about.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am afraid I will take his word against the member for Lake Nipigon.
The letter goes on to point out: "There will be important couplings between this group of units and the geo-engineering and metallurgy programs as well as other science departments and the faculty of management studies.
"I would emphasize again that the University of Toronto has chosen to focus its existing capabilities in the manner that I have indicated. Apart from being a new building complex for ancient buildings, there is nothing new other than our own conception of what is important that we should have focus upon. Hence, there is every opportunity in these circumstances for Toronto to co-operate and collaborate with Laurentian and Lakehead in order to provide this province with the knowledge and the capability to make the best use of its resources, renewable and nonrenewable.
"I am copying this letter to David Strangeway, who is an eminent geophysicist and a leader in the development of the natural resources centre. I am asking him to engage in whatever discussions would be constructive with members of your staff and with the Lakehead staff in devising meaningful, co-operative working relations.
"There is only one element of the apparent upset that has occurred which I find difficult to accept. The University of Toronto is a strongly research-based institution. In deciding to focus certain of its existing intellectual resources on the earth and environmental sciences and related problems in the development of natural resources, it has not deflected major resources away from your universities. It has simply, in my view, been imaginative about the use of its own resources in a way that can be better understood publicly.
"If this incident indeed inspires us to work out more effective bonds then it will indeed have been a positive one." He goes on to talk about leaving the presidency and he thanks them both for their co-operation. A copy of that letter went to Dr. Harrower of Lakehead University, and of course it was directed to Dr. Best.
That pretty well spells out what their efforts were at the University of Toronto; just to bring the existing facilities that they have now under one new roof, that is all it was. But the reports coming out of some places indicated they were going to pull away from Laurentian University and possibly pull away from Lakehead University, and that is entirely incorrect. He states it clearly in his letter, and that is the reason for putting it on the record. There may be some further questions about that.
Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman --
Mr. Chairman: One moment, if I may, member for London North. Would the minister permit questions?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Sure.
8:10 p.m.
Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman, keeping in mind that the last time we were in the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs it seemed to be acceptable to interject or ask a question at the end of each section we were covering, in this particular instance I note that the member for Lake Nipigon had an observation. My observation would have to be that there is no question about the need for the repair of some of the buildings or facilities here at the University of Toronto.
I think the question that still remains to be answered is, given the determination to enhance these forestry programs here at the U of T, what, on the other hand, is this ministry or the Ministry of Colleges and Universities doing to underline the importance of the mining and forestry programs in the north, particularly at Lakehead University and Laurentian University? What is being done to foster and encourage more development up there?
It seems that once more, with this move to spruce up the U of T's physical facilities, putting a red asterisk beside the program and calling it the research focal point -- the minute the government does that it takes away from what the north has been hoping for all along. I realize that what the minister read to us were not his words but the words of the president of the university, but I think the question is a still legitimate; that is, what is being done to enhance or to bring up to that level of recognition the mining and forestry programs at Lakehead and Laurentian universities?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, that is a very good question and one that I am pleased to respond to. If we take the various universities -- and we have two of them in northern Ontario -- my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) has already made a public statement that much of that ministry's research will now move out of that ministry and be farmed out to those universities and to the private sector. That has caused a stir within that ministry; there is no question about it. There is a feeling that it should remain within the ministry. I am one of those who support that research going out to those institutes, as they are doing.
The government's thrust under the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development committee to establish a resource machinery centre in the Sudbury basin, which will see something like $20 million or so spent with Laurentian University in developing innovative mining techniques and machinery for northern Ontario, is located in northern Ontario. I hope the prototypes that are developed will be developed in northern Ontario, because when prototypes are developed and manufacturing follows, if it occurs in a specific area or region of the province then of course the manufacturing remains in that area.
Mr. Stokes: Just like Jarvis Clark.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Exactly. I regret they saw fit to move out of the North Bay area. Nevertheless, that is the government's thrust.
There is a very strong movement to strengthen the research capabilities of both those universities; there is no question about it. This government is committed to go in that direction. In fact, I have made it known to the presidents of both those universities that any research my ministry is involved in will be sent in their direction. Wild rice is a typical example.
Mr. Van Horne: That leads me to my last question on this item. Can the minister identify for us in his estimates book any specific moneys that are directed to research at either of those two universities? Are there any specific amounts listed in this estimates book for the year 1983-84?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think the only specific moneys we are voting on in these estimates is for wild rice research at Lakehead University. No, I believe there is another one. It may be completed now. It was the utilization of waste wood in the forests of northern Ontario, and I think that research has been completed.
Mr. Stokes: Well, continue on.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I thought the member had another question.
The member for London North also made some comment about the rail-bus situation, and I think he sent me a copy of a brochure he had picked up with respect to improving rail passenger service in the remote areas of northern Ontario. I think he is very much aware that my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) and I have embarked on a study of that area with respect to the continuation of passenger service by Via Rail. That report, I understand, is either complete or nearing completion.
I have to admit I was somewhat upset to see the Canadian Transport Commission holding public hearings in Sioux Lookout and Thunder Bay with respect to the limitation of rail service between those two communities prior to our report coming down. They were very much aware of it. In fact, I think they were involved in some of the discussions during our studies and our examination of the whole question of rail passenger service in northern Ontario. For them to hold public hearings in advance of our report I find difficult to understand. I made that known to them and I made it known publicly.
The member is quite right. There are studies going on in Manitoba with regard to a rail-bus. We have been in touch with them. We are watching that development closely, but I have to say the Manitoba people are finding Canadian National Railways very unco-operative with respect to that type of facility on its rail system. There is practically no co-operation from the CNR. I think we would find the same thing here, having had experience with the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.
Mr. Kerrio: What about the Canadian Pacific Railway there?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: The CPR does not run in some of these places, but the experience to date has not been one of any great enthusiasm. The member also mentioned the involvement with the ONTC. What we are trying to do is work closely with the Urban Transportation Development Corp. for the development of a facility that will not only improve service in the northeastern Ontario corridor but also possibly strengthen the research and development capabilities of UTDC in the possible development of a unique bilevel facility that could be manufactured in Thunder Bay and sold right across Canada. Those discussions are going on at the present moment. We are very much aware of improved rail service in the northeastern Ontario corridor.
Turning now to the member for Lake Nipigon, I would again like to recognize his favourable comments with respect to some of our positive programs in northern Ontario --
Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman, with respect, there were two other topics in the beginning statement which I alluded to. One was on renewable energy. The other was on the delivery of health care in the north. I may be wrong, but I do not recall hearing comments on those things. If they are in what he is going to offer in response to the member for Lake Nipigon that is fine, we will take it at that point.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I can talk about the energy requirements. That is something we, as a ministry, watch closely as to what happens right across northern Ontario, particularly in the remote areas where we are in constant contact with Ontario Hydro and with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in pressing for electrification of the remote areas.
I might say we do get co-operation after we develop an airstrip in many of these remote northern communities. Muskrat Dam Lake comes to mind; I had a group in just last week pressing for some consideration for electrification of that community. Hydro has said quite emphatically that it is willing to put in energy as soon as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development gives it the nod.
Of course, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development waits and would appreciate the development of an airstrip in order that it could move in the generator and provide the fuel on an ongoing basis, as well as servicing the plant. That is on the books. As we move with our airstrip program it brings with it the electrification of those small, remote northern Ontario communities.
8:20 p.m.
The development of peat as an energy source is still something that is some distance off, in my opinion. We have held seminars in co-operation with other ministries and other groups. We had a very extensive one a couple of years ago in Thunder Bay.
It is obvious to us and to those involved that the economics are not here as yet. There has been some interest by the private sector in the development of that resource and that is moving ahead quite slowly. There are a number of suggestions and possibilities for further research and development in this field, but it is too premature for me to delve into them to any great extent at this time.
The member mentioned the delivery of health care services. Our efforts in this regard are still real and positive. We work closely with the Ministry of Health in our bursary program. I am sure the member for Lake Nipigon will have something to say about that because he has a personal involvement.
Our bursary program has had some effect on the promotion and encouragement of specialists in northern Ontario. It has had a terrific effect in providing northern Ontario with the required number of dentists. I think it is fair to say we have pretty nearly filled the needs in northern Ontario at this time with our dental program through mobile units, assistance in the Kenora-Rainy River area with a school program and the co-operation of the Ontario Dental Association in its efforts to improve dental care across northern Ontario. We have the basis of a good program. We want to maintain that and improve upon it.
With respect to the medical area, the member is aware we have our bursary program and our aid to municipalities with the development and purchase of medical and dental clinics whereby we will assist municipalities with up to two thirds of the capital cost if they will take the initiative to erect medical clinics and encourage dentists and doctors to come to their communities. Under our system of medicine I do not think we can expect young doctors to move to northern Ontario and make a major capital investment for a medical clinic to serve the public in that area. But our initiative is working, there is no question about that.
We are short of surgeons. About a week ago it was brought to my attention forcefully that from Thunder Bay to the Manitoba border, because of a number of deaths and transfers out, we have something like one surgeon. I immediately called in the chief executive officer of the Ontario Medical Association. We had a lengthy discussion as to how we could encourage more surgeons in northern Ontario.
He promptly pointed out to me that doctors or surgeons do not answer want ads. They are well served in their own areas, but there is movement in the system. I asked him how I could personally make an appeal to surgeons in southern Ontario. We came up with a plan whereby I will send a personal letter, over my signature, to every surgeon in southern Ontario pointing out the benefits of moving to northern Ontario if they are so inclined and would like to change their atmosphere or way of life.
I point out the quality of life we have and all the benefits of operating in northern Ontario. That will entail over 1,000 letters. I am prepared to do that. The need is real, and as a northerner I want to get our message to the professionals who may be thinking they would like to live and practise in a different atmosphere. Northern Ontario can certainly offer them that.
Along with our bursary program and our assistance through the Ministry of Health, the members are voting something like $3.8 million to the air ambulance program in northern Ontario. Under that program, which is shared by the Ministry of Health, four dedicated aircraft are located in northern Ontario: a helicopter at Sudbury, a jet at Timmins, a helicopter at Thunder Bay and a King Air located at Sioux Lookout. Granted they are not operating on a 24-hour basis; I hope we will achieve that in the not too distant future when funds become available. The helicopters operate on a 24-hour basis and the other aircraft operate on a 10-hour basis at the present time.
I had a pleasant announcement to make today in co-operation with the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) with respect to Marathon. That is in the honourable member's riding. The Wilson Memorial General Hospital has just completed the development of a heliport that will now provide 24-hour service by that helicopter out of Thunder Bay. We have developed something like 23 or 24 heliports in northern Ontario. They are totally paid for by the Ministry of Health, I might say. It is an excellent program that is working exceptionally well.
In fact, the air ambulance system we have in place is receiving bouquets from people in all walks of life. It literally puts them within one hour of a major medical referral centre. Working closely with the Ministry of Health, in the last two or three years we have made some major advances in dealing with the special and unique needs in northern Ontario.
The member for Lake Nipigon made some very positive remarks concerning our efforts in a number of different areas. I think he used the words "yeoman service" in some instances where we have moved in to answer a special need. He also recognized our special role to set policy and priorities with respect to a number of matters in northern Ontario, be they health care, transportation other areas.
I have just been informed by my deputy that the Ministry of Northern Affairs is paying for the heliports; it is not the Ministry of Health. So those 22 or 23 heliports were developed by the Ministry of Northern Affairs as part of our overall program.
The member for Lake Nipigon mentioned the lack of visits by members of the Ontario Legislature to northern Ontario. If I recall correctly, when we first came here this was an annual, a semi-annual or a biannual event. At least in every parliament there was a trip to northern Ontario. I was involved in the planning of two of those major trips for all members of the Legislature. On the last one, we polled every member of the Legislature and received positive indications from something like 80 members who would go on that trip. It was an extensive one leaving here by train and going up to northeastern Ontario. I think it went up to Timmins and Sault Ste. Marie. It was very extensive.
We were disappointed when we found that only about 30 members showed up. The costs were astronomical, I have to admit, because we had booked for 80 people. We hired a whole train and laid on buses and staff. The planning for a trip of this nature takes four or five months and it was discouraging. So we did not move in that direction again with any enthusiasm for fear of some criticism.
It should be pointed out, and members should be reminded, that under their legislative transportation allowance they can move anywhere in the province 12 times a year. If any group wants to go to northern Ontario I would be the first one to offer my services as a co-ordinator and planner to point out places of interest and open some doors, mine pits and paper mills, and even to fly members over the regenerated forests of northern Ontario. It would take two or three days just to look at the reforestation and regeneration program my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources is busy doing.
8:30 p.m.
Mr. Stokes: That is your problem. You go flying over it at 20,000 feet instead of getting down and seeing what is going on.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: No. I have put a lot of miles on my car. I make it a personal habit to check the highways from the highways, not from the skyways.
Members have the financial resources, paid for by the people of this province, to visit any part of northern Ontario. In fact the former Minister of Agriculture and Food, the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson), was always complaining to me that northern members should come down to southwestern Ontario, because many of us had never seen a winery in Niagara Falls, those beautiful grapes and that Inniskillen wine that flows so freely from that area. I admit I have never seen that, or any tobacco kilns.
There were areas of interest he wanted to show us. He was constantly pressing for northern members to visit the south and become educated in their particular problems, as we would like southern members to become more familiar with our problems and our area of this great province. I encourage all members to make it a point next year to visit northern Ontario.
Mr. Nixon: There is only one problem, there are too many Tories.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Don't just go to Renfrew. There are other places besides Renfrew and Algonquin Park.
Mr. Conway: Listen, Leo, you lay on a trip and we'll pay our way. I am quite serious. I would love to go.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I know the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) is constantly pressing for a members' tour.
Mr. Nixon: That is not quite the offer I meant, but --
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I know how excited he is about going to northern Ontario and I invite him, as a long-time resident of that great area, to come up and visit at any opportunity and it will be there for him to enjoy.
Mr. Conway: My late grandfather used to inquire about that "northern drunk" as he called it, wondering if it was still on.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: What was that?
Mr. Conway: My late grandfather used to ask me if that --
Hon. Mr. Bernier: There was never any drinking on the trip that I organized.
Mr. Conway: This was 1926.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: That was long before my time.
Mr. R. F. Johnston: About a year or two before.
Mr. Conway: They had a great good time in his day, I gather. Something about taking the train across the great north.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Things have changed. I might say the north has changed too.
The member for Lake Nipigon made some very complimentary remarks with regard to our extended care program that was announced in the throne speech. We have since announced four or five pilot projects across northern Ontario: one in Dryden, one in the member's riding of Geraldton, Atikokan and Smooth Rock Falls. Sioux Lookout will be on the list once we get the amalgamation sorted out with the federal government.
Mr. Stokes: What about Wawa?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have Wawa on my list here.
We have made the announcement and we are committed to that program. Over a five-year period we think we can see an expenditure of something like $25 million to $30 million on this program alone.
The Ministry of Health and Management Board, in their wisdom -- and it really was the correct decision; we were going into a new program and we really did not know what the cost would actually be -- prevailed upon us to pick four or five different types of circumstances. Dryden has a different set of circumstances than Atikokan, which is different from Geraldton. I believe Geraldton is putting on an extra wing as part and parcel of its extended care facilities.
The Ministry of Health wanted to know if some hospitals would need new heating systems because of 20-bed extended care facilities. Would they need a whole new electrical system? Would the present kitchen serve the extra 20 beds? Every hospital would be unique because the improvements that would have to be done to the existing hospital would be tied to the expenditure on extended care.
We agreed with that, and we are using these four or five as pilot projects to get a handle on it and to get some idea of the cost for the balance of the program, which will include 25 or 30 communities across northern Ontario. Wawa is in that next package, that is the point I am trying to make, once we get these under way. We hope to turn the sod in early 1984 for two or three of these. Much of the planning has gone on. We had money in our budget last year for the engineering and design for these specific hospitals and that is moving ahead.
I am really proud of this program, because it was talked about, needed and designed in northern Ontario.
The health council in the Cochrane area did a very extensive study, as did the health council in the Rainy River area and the Kenora area, of the specific needs for long-term care of our senior citizens in the smaller communities. I think the package they came up with is unique to northern Ontario and I am pleased that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services have seized on it as a need in northern Ontario.
One thing I want to make abundantly clear is that any development of an extended care facility in any of these communities will not relieve that municipality of its responsibility to the district home that is already established. We have seen the problem in the Fort Frances area; Rainy River is slated to have an extended care facility somewhere down the road. Atikokan has already had its announcement; it is getting on with the extended care facility.
There is a need for a new home for the aged in Fort Frances and there was some reneging by Fort Frances and Atikokan; they did not want to contribute their contracted portion of the capital cost. I have said from day one that in no way would this relieve those municipalities of their responsibility to the established district homes for the aged, because they will be needed and we cannot back away from the commitment and that particular need.
So I say to the member for Lake Nipigon that Wawa is in the package and is on the list. I think it will be in the next four or five that are announced. I personally had some correspondence with Wawa and tried to indicate this as positively as I could. I certainly admire those communities' desire to get on with the extended care. One sixth of the capital cost has to be raised locally and many of the communities have already raised their portion, which is an indication to us here at Queen's Park that they are sincere and that the need is great.
The member for Lake Nipigon made some comment with respect to the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment. I indicated to him that I thought the report was to be down by December 31, 1983. We have since learned that, while the commission will wind up its activities at the end of this year, the report will not be down until March 31, 1984. I am anxiously looking forward to receiving that report, of course, and I really cannot comment one way or another until I see it.
The member was commenting very strongly about the massive costs this commission has imposed on the taxpayers of this province. I cannot even comment on that until we find out what is in the report and what the recommendations are, but I am sure that when it does come down we will all be in a better position to comment positively or negatively, and I will certainly await that report when it comes down at the end of March.
The member talked at some length about the access road program and the problems associated with those semi-isolated communities, along the main lines of the Canadian National Railway particularly. He suggested there should be greater co-operation between industry, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and all other ministries in doing that particular type of alignment which would not only extract the renewable and nonrenewable resources but also provide access for those communities.
I can tell the member that since this was brought up at our last discussion of these estimates we have moved in that direction. The road north of Redditt is a good example of the efforts we have taken, not only with the local people but with the communities, with industry and with the Ministry of Natural Resources to put that alignment in place so we will get the biggest bang for our buck in the years to come. Detour Lake was another example of how we worked very closely with the tourist industry, the mining industry and the pulp and paper industry to get the biggest bang for the taxpayers' dollars; I think it has worked exceptionally well.
8:40 p.m.
The Manitou road, which connects Dryden and Fort Frances, is another example of excellent planning as it relates to the development of a connecting link. We are doing the same thing on the Bending Lake road from Atikokan to the Ignace area, moving that road to access those nonrenewable resources, such as those located at Bending Lake in the hope that some day they will be developed for the benefit of the taxpayers of this province. So there is some flexibility. We are constantly aware of the multiple-use aspect. In our co-ordinating role we constantly bring this forward to industry and to other ministries of this government.
The member also went on in his remarks to touch on the very pleasant two or three days he had at that great world-class resort known as Minaki Lodge. I was most pleased to see him there and I regret that for personal reasons the member for London North could not accept my invitation to be there. I hope he gets the opportunity to go to Minaki Lodge and see for himself what has been developed in the interest of providing a flagship of tourism in northwestern Ontario; a jewel of the north, if you want, a catalyst that will push tourism into the forefront in northwestern Ontario, that will bring tourists from all around the world, something that will be a monument to this government and something that outdates and improves on Montebello and is equal to Jasper Park.
Why can we not have something in the middle of Canada that equals that? I ask members that question? Is there something wrong with having something of that calibre?
Mr. Martel: Put it where people can get to it.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I make no apologies for that at all. You will be as proud of Minaki as I am two or three years from now.
Mr. Martel: I don't think so.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: You will.
Mr. Martel: I hear you are moving it.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member for Lake Nipigon signed the guest book when he was there and he wrote "fantastic." That says it all.
Mr. Martel: Anything is fantastic if you put $45 million into it.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: That says it all. It was fantastic.
Mr. Stokes: For $45 million I could have done even better.
Mr. Samis: Anybody could have.
Mr. Conway: It is $46 million worth of fantasia.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Let us have the record show $22 million on the lodge. The road would have been built; it was part of a five-year planning process. Would the member deny a road to the Whitedog Indian reserve? He surely would not. He would be the first one to stand up and condemn us if we did not do it. The road is there; it is a first-class road, as well it should be. It serves Minaki Lodge. Is there something wrong with that?
Mr. Martel: What riding is it in?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I don't know. What riding is it in?
Mr. Martel: That is why it is there -- first- class.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, not really.
We built the Hallmark Hornepayne Town Centre and it was not in this member's riding. That was not considered. If there is a need in northern Ontario --
Mr. Martel: How many people from Minaki actually work there?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Let me talk about that. We recognized that particular problem two years ago. My ministry, under the direction of the assistant deputy minister at that time, foresaw the problem and embarked on a very extensive education program with Confederation College right at Holst Point where we encouraged the local people to come and participate in a training program.
Mr. Stokes: You do not want to talk about Holst Point.
Mr. Martel: Just tell us how many.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Wait a minute. That is where the training program was going on.
Mr. Stokes: They had a bunch of Yanks in there operating illegally.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are not there any more.
Mr. Stokes: You do not want to talk about Holst Point.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes I do, because it is a money-maker, the same as Minaki Lodge will be.
Mr. Martel: How many are from Minaki? Just give me the numbers.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Wait a minute. Let me explain the training program. This is a world-class facility. We indicated to the local people at that time, "Just because Minaki Lodge is in your backyard, the job is not necessarily yours. You are going to have to shape up, train and compete with other people."
Mr. Martel: We got through that line. Now tell me how many.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: We really do not discriminate against Manitobans because they are our greatest customers. If they want to come from Manitoba, Kenora and Thunder Bay --
Mr. Martel: Give me the number. Just tell us how many.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: The largest percentage were from Ontario.
Mr. Martel: Just tell us how many are from Minaki.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I don't have the numbers offhand.
Mr. Martel: Oh, I know you don't.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I will tell the member the largest percentage of employees at Minaki Lodge were from Ontario.
Mr. Martel: How many from Minaki?
Mr. Stokes: Do you want me to tell you?
Mr. Martel: Come on, tell us.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: There are 140 jobs there and there were not 140 jobs two years ago, I can tell the members that. This is what counts; 140 permanent jobs.
Mr. Martel: You won't tell us. Will you send that to your staff?
Mr. McClellan: Are there more than 10 or fewer than 10?
Mr. Martel: Two.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: They will be permanent jobs. Let us look at the operation at Minaki Lodge this year. It averaged around 60 or 65 per cent occupancy.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. The member for Sudbury East.
Mr. Martel: Is it not obvious he just does not want to give us the figure? Is it not obvious even to you, Mr. Chairman?
The Deputy Chairman: You have asked the question again. The minister will answer the question, please.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: If I had those figures I would be glad to give them to the member. I am sure if he asked my colleague the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) he would get them.
However, we were very sensitive to the needs of that particular community in advance of the lodge opening. We foresaw the problem and trained those people. There are people from the Minaki area working there and they love it.
Mr. Martel: There are six from Minaki.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is no unemployment in Minaki. About two years ago about 60 per cent were unemployed; now there is no unemployment. They may not be working at the lodge, but they are working and that is what counts.
Mr. Martel: Are there six from Minaki?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: A job is a job is a job, and the member should not forget that.
Mr. Martel: You are gumming it too hard to be credible. Six from Minaki have a job. Let the record show this.
The Deputy Chairman: Order. The records show a lot.
Mr. Kerrio: It would require 140 per cent occupancy to make a profit.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Occupancy of 140 per cent? I wish it was.
I touched on medical services at some length. I believe we are working with the town of Armstrong in trying to set up a medical clinic. I have been in touch with Dr. Copeman on that particular issue. There is some land problem he is trying to work out; however, he is confident he can resolve this particular problem.
There is something about Canadian National not selling land or leasing land. He goes on at some length, but he assured me as late as last week he thinks it can be resolved and that we can get on with providing a clinic, which should be in Armstrong. In fact, when the chamber of commerce group was down here a couple of weeks ago a little girl from the chamber was here. She made a special note of inviting me up to Armstrong. I hope to get up there early in the new year. If the member for Lake Nipigon is handy, I would like him to join me.
We touched on the Nakina problems. I think the member for Lake Nipigon is very much aware of my efforts with respect to stopping that runthrough at Nakina. As I pointed out to the member on Tuesday, I have written to the former Minister of Transport, Jean Luc Pépin.
Mr. Stokes: Thank God it is former.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: We did not get very far with our suggestion that he entertain a meeting with myself and the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) to discuss this issue. He was not interested, so that meeting never did take place.
Mr. Kerrio: After the terrible things the minister says about the feds, how can he expect their help?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would hope my friends in the Liberal Party would prevail upon some of those federal Liberal ministers to be more sensitive to the needs of northern Ontario. We try with various ministers and we get a deaf ear from them. We sometimes wonder if they know where northern Ontario really is. If the member can help us, we would appreciate his support.
In respect to the Nakina operation, we are told that CN is prepared or would entertain public hearings after it completes its discussions with the union and works out some internal problems. I think there is something in the record that we recently received about that. However, the member for Lake Nipigon may be more up to date than I am on that particular issue.
8:50 p.m.
None the less, I think we are in complete agreement with the member for Lake Nipigon that these decisions should be made public and that the CNR should be forced to show facts and figures for savings, if there are any, and reasons for making such a disruptive decision which affects some 50-odd families in the Nakina area. Will some of them move to Hornepayne? I am sure the member will want to discuss Hornepayne a little as we move ahead.
I believe in my opening remarks I touched on the last item, Whitedog, that the member brought up. I think those discussions are moving ahead. I think I touched to some extent on wild rice and our position and my position as it relates to the future of that renewable resource.
I would hope the honourable member has tried that California rice and compared it with the great northern Ontario rice, that could be more abundant in northern Ontario if some of our attitudes and maybe policies change. But it is there and we certainly will press on to see some economic progress made in that particular field.
I think that concludes my remarks in answer to the honourable members in their opening statements. If there is something I have neglected or failed to comment on, I will welcome any question and we can get on with the issues.
Mr. Van Horne: I was simply going to defer to the member for Lake Nipigon because I went on each particular topic to supplementary questions that I had for the minister, so I am finished with that part of that. Perhaps the member for Nipigon has questions.
Mr. Stokes: I would like to engage the minister for a few moments on the last item he responded to, and that was the Nakina runthrough. The minister is right. I received a letter from John O'Hara, who is the secretary of the railway transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission. They will provide public hearings once the negotiations between Canadian National and the employee union groups are completed.
I had some misgivings about that, although there is the assurance it will not prejudice the public hearings regardless of what decision is reached for some kind of compensation and it still will not prejudice either the employees or other people who have an interest and feel so strongly about what might happen with regard to the elimination of Nakina as a terminal.
I want to quote the minister, because on a couple of occasions while he was responding to the opening remarks of the member for London North and myself, he mentioned transportation in a couple of instances. I know the minister wants us to respond to the criticisms in the annual report of the Provincial Auditor for the last fiscal year ending March 31, and he probably would have wanted to get into all of the details. I want to refer to page 81 of the auditor's report where he says, "Although CN employment did increase from approximately 425 in 1975, there have been layoffs and at the time of our review," that is, the auditor's review, "there were about 410 CN employees."
Going back to the reason for building the town centre in Hornepayne -- referring to page 71 of the auditor's report -- he says: "Feasibility of the project: The town centre was conceived in 1975 as a result of a planned expansion of CN operations which was to increase its labour force in Hornepayne from approximately 425 in 1975 to some 600 by 1980 or 1981. While there is also a need to replace the existing CN accommodation, Hallmark, having been selected by CN to provide commercial development, suggested a community approach."
What does it say about the planning of CN when it told the ministry it was planning for a work force that would increase from 425 in 1975 to 600 by 1980 or 1981? The Provincial Auditor tells us there were only 410 workers when he completed his review, which I assume was in the 1981-82 fiscal year. The net result of the Nakina runthrough will mean the operating tradespeople will of necessity be forced either to move or commute to Hornepayne in order to pursue their employment in the running trades as enginemen, conductors or trainmen.
CN tells us the maximum number in the running trades group that will be affected will be something in the order of 51, as opposed to the 175 it expected in justifying its participation in the Hornepayne town centre. The minister will know there is a great reorganization going on in CN, which will move out of those northern communities the dispatchers, call boys and all the traditional people who make their living by providing services in terminals in railway centres wherever they are.
One wonders at the planning of Canadian National Railways, along with the Ministry of Northern Affairs as the lead ministry, on Hallmark when they can hand the minister that kind of gobbledegook. We know the minister is having difficulties justifying the economic viability of a centre such as the Hornepayne town centre.
The rationale provided by this minister's deputy says: "The focus of this innovative pilot project was to address the problems of life in a small, remote northern community. This is reflected in the purposes listed in the letter of intent. Indeed, at the time, it was thought similar projects might be developed across northern Ontario. The government's investment in this project was for the purpose of improving the community life of the town of Hornepayne, not strictly for obtaining a financial return on the original investment.
"As I am sure you are aware, this is the case with many public sector capital investments. It is expected this ministry's evaluation of the project will be able to demonstrate some of the social benefits of the town centre to the community of Hornepayne as a whole."
As a northerner and somebody who is really involved in planning, economic spinoff and all the social and economic implications, I can see there is some justification for the expenditure of public funds in a similar fashion, but when the minister cannot even get factual information from the major employer in that community, how can he plan in a realistic way so he does not come under fire from somebody such as the auditor of this province?
9 p.m.
What does the minister feel? Does he feel as though he has been betrayed or let down by a major corporation, albeit a crown corporation? I am sure the minister was not aware the company was not going to achieve anywhere near the kind of employment statistics it was boasting of in 1975 when this whole plan was conceived. Does the minister not feel a little bit betrayed? Even if the company is successful in closing out Nakina as a terminal, moving people over to Hornepayne, the minister will want to know it is now in the process of eliminating its complement, its personnel, and is going to send them down to Toronto.
I was on a plane out of Terrace Bay, Geraldton, Hornepayne, Wawa and Sault Ste. Marie two weeks ago. I missed the Grey Cup as a result of it. I was told by people who were on the plane with me that the people who were normally centred in Hornepayne are down in places in southern Ontario getting a better overview of the way in which trains operate in southern Ontario because, in the not too distant future, all the trains are going to be dispatched from some central location in southern Ontario.
Did CNR know or did it not know that all these plans were in the works? In a fair way they are gumming up things for the people of Nakina. They have really gummed up and made the minister look bad in terms of the overall planning in Hornepayne. Just how far does he think those corporations should be allowed to go in their planning, which has such far-reaching ramifications for the kinds of things the ministry gets sucked into, rightly or wrongly, with a Hornepayne centre?
Sure, there are social benefits, but if the minister is convinced there are social benefits for the expenditure of public funds for Hornepayne, is he sufficiently convinced that we should be doing the same thing in White River, Manitouwadge and Marathon, which are going to act as the dormitory communities for this $6 billion worth of gold we are going to extract from the earth up there over the next 20 years? The minister will know they are going to be the dormitory communities in a very real sense.
They do not have the ability now to tax the industry because it is plunked in the centre of nowhere about 30 to 35 miles from those three communities. I know those three communities are already knocking on the door of the ministry asking for infrastructure dollars for new streets and lots with water and sewer services. I think in at least one instance they are going to require a new school. All these services are going to be there and are being planned for right now with the fellow in the ministry, Ernie Lane, along with others.
We are looking at a resource that is conservatively estimated to be worth in excess of $6 billion given the present price of gold. It will have a life expectancy of 20 years plus. We collectively are going to spend millions and millions of dollars acting as the dormitory community for that resource. Who is going to be left to pick up the pieces? We are still looking at the boom and bust syndrome. Since this economic development is based on a finite, nonrenewable resource, what are we doing right now to put something in place that would be the equivalent of the old mining revenue payments that were in place before Darcy McKeough scuttled that and brought in the resources equalization policy that he said in a very real sense made up for the old mining revenue payments?
What kind of economic rent are we going to be able to extract from the three major players to date, namely, Noranda Mines, Lac Minerals and Teck Corp.? They are going to spend $700 million to $800 million, I am told, developing either two or three mines. What kind of economic rent are we, the taxpayers in Ontario, going to be able to call upon? Are we going to set up a resources development fund so that from the time the very first ton of ore or ounce of gold is taken out we start a reserve fund for the day when that resource will no longer be there and, if need be, we can draw on that fund to help provide some of the facilities that people are entitled to, the people who are going to be the work force and living in those bedroom or dormitory communities, be it a Manitouwadge, a Marathon or a White River?
The minister will know -- he was in Marathon recently, and people are already making overtures to him -- they may need a little help with some planning and with extending water and sewage treatment plants. The same thing is going to happen in White River and Manitouwadge.
I am not against economic development, but any community that thinks being a dormitory community means all the assessment that is going to accrue to it by way of residential assessment as opposed to industrial assessment is never going to get the proper tax mix. The industry that is responsible for that work force being there is going to have to pay some of the upfront costs. It is different, but in some way it is the same as a Hornepayne.
The minister knows what I am talking about. There is no way those communities can ever even break even by the residential tax structure on the new homes and new services that are going to be demanded, I think justly so, by that work force. Should that come out of the pockets of the taxpayers in those communities? Should that come out of the revenues that are assigned to this ministry? Perhaps we should come up with some kind of resource payment to get the upfront money so that 20 years down the road, whenever we take the last ton of ore or the last ounce of gold out of there, we will not be scratching our heads and saying: "Where do we go now? What do we do for a Manitouwadge? What do we do for a White River? What do we do for a Marathon?"
We abandon millions of dollars of equity, whether it be in schools, hospitals, roads or water and sewer infrastructure, or whether it be some little entrepreneur who was attracted to the area and thought he had a viable business for a good length of time only to find out that we have another Atikokan on our hands.
Now is the time that we should be looking at it and seeing to what extent the province, the people who create that new wealth and the communities in which they live get some economic rent from that resource that is valued in excess of $6 billion right now. I do not think we should wait until it is all gone. I think we should be studying right now how the costs of providing those services and of identifying the bedroom communities are derived from that resource that was responsible for the economic development in the first place.
Mr. Kerrio: Perish the thought.
Mr. Stokes: Sure. Why not?
9:10 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, if I may respond briefly, the member made some comment with respect to the Hornepayne development and the size of that facility. What it means to Hornepayne is as significant as he correctly pointed out. I point out to him that there are changes in the CNR operation, as we have seen right across northern Ontario. The call boys now in Sioux Lookout have been called off now. They are calling from Winnipeg, as they are doing in Rainy River. In Hornepayne we know they are calling from Toronto. That is part of the technological revolution that is going on. It will be difficult for us to stop.
In our discussions with the CNR in the development of the Hornepayne centre, they did indicate to us that they hoped their work force would be expanded by 200 in the Hornepayne area, because Hornepayne would become the major divisional point between Montreal and Winnipeg and the extra work force would be needed because of the extra railway freight traffic that would be generated on that line and their efforts in that direction. But at no time in those discussions did they indicate that they would consolidate from Capreol or Nakina into Hornepayne. That was never placed on the table. We were never aware that possibility was there.
I want to put some comments on the record. Some members may not be aware of the size of the Hornepayne facility, for instance. I will read a paragraph from an article I have:
"The sprawling, 166,000-square-foot brownstone centre, two blocks from the railway station at a main intersection, brings under one roof 112 bachelorettes; seven rail lodge units for railway crews; a 34-room hotel and dining room; a coffee shop; lounges; an eight-room, 140-student high school; a library serving schools and the town; 20 rental apartments; 16 senior citizen apartments under rent-geared-to-income; a large swimming pool; a gymnasium and saunas; a shopping mall, including a Hudson's Bay store; doctors', dentists' and health department offices; a police detachment office with two cells; a bank; post office; liquor store and administrative and educational facilities."
All that is under one roof. It is absolutely spectacular.
The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) was there. He stood in my presence and that of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and heaped nothing but bouquets on the government for the development of the Hornepayne centre, which we as northerners and the member for Lake Nipigon have rightly recognized as a unique, special, northern Ontario thrust.
Mr. Martel: Why do you ignore the issue?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: The members on the other side are constantly asking this government to do innovative and creative things that are needed in northern Ontario. This is one; it has been done.
Mr. Martel: When the CNR doesn't go there, what happens? Who is going to pay for it?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: It will be there. They are involved.
Mr. Martel: Oh, baloney. They are moving out 40 dispatchers alone.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are involved and their dollars are there. It is the same thing that has happened at Leaf Rapids and Churchill, Manitoba. There are similar facilities.
Let us hear what the reeve of Hornepayne says: "Those who can leave were considered lucky. Now with the centre, we have it as good as city folk. We have our share of big-city amenities and still have our outdoors. We are starting to feel better about ourselves and to plan for some real progress for our particular town."
He goes on to point out: "How sharing can be turned into cash benefits is outlined in The Town of Tomorrow Is Here Today, a folder that was produced at the official opening." The folder said:
"Building all the required elements under one roof facilitates energy costs and maintenance efficiency. Carrying costs are reduced through the use of one large financing package and sophisticated realty conveyance methods. As important is the sharing of many spaces by several users and the accessibility of all the facilities in the environmentally controlled space. This co-operation leads to increased use of resources to the benefit of the citizens and the facilities that are operated.
"How good is it for Hornepayne? Reeve Chuck MacLellan answered: 'Senior citizens were shut in their homes for a large part of the year, fighting snow and cold to get their supplies. Living at the centre, they now have a healthy contact with other seniors and townspeople of all ages each day and can move around and shop in comfort and go outside if they choose. They even have their own time in the swimming pool. The cost is affordable, a percentage of their income.'"
What does he say about the future of Hornepayne? This is Chuck MacLellan, the reeve, speaking: "Money is coming into the town again. Travellers used to plan their trips so they would stay anywhere but Hornepayne. Now they plan to stay in Hornepayne. Families, groups and couples come for weekends from nearby towns. Tourists including hunters and fishermen turn up because they know they can get first-class accommodation in Hornepayne."
Mr. Martel: The CNR is moving them out.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: The CNR is involved.
Mr. Martel: No, it is not. You are distorting. That was two years ago.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, I am not distorting. The facts are there.
The Deputy Chairman: Excuse me. The member for Sudbury East will withdraw that statement. The minister will resume his seat.
Mr. Martel: I will not. He is distorting the facts. You show me where that is in the rules.
The Deputy Chairman: The member for Sudbury East is imputing false or unavowed motives to another member. I am calling the honourable member to order and I am asking him to withdraw that statement about distorting.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, if I was saying the member was misleading, that is one thing, but that is not what I am saying. I am saying he is distorting the facts. If there is something wrong with that under the parliamentary rules as we have them today, Mr. Chairman, tell me what it is.
I will tell you what has happened. What the minister is failing to put in that statement is that two years ago, when that occurred, the CNR had not decided to move a whole bunch of people out. The CNR is moving a whole series of jobs out, which is undercutting the ability of that municipality to pay the bill.
The minister knows that and he plays around with something that is not factual. He says they do not have to move. That is right. They do not have to, except the CNR is moving them out. It is not that they want to move out; they are being moved out.
The Deputy Chairman: The member for Sudbury East is saying it in a nicer way. Would he withdraw the word "distorting?"
Mr. Martel: If I said he was misleading, I would withdraw that, but I am saying he is distorting the facts, and those are the facts.
The Deputy Chairman: I am still concerned that the member has left a wrong intent on the part of the minister or another member of the House.
Mr. Martel: If I had said he was misleading, I would apologize immediately.
The Deputy Chairman: I am still not satisfied, and to clear the air --
Mr. Martel: I am not suggesting for a moment that he is misleading the House. I just said he was distorting the facts.
The Deputy Chairman: I see little difference. The honourable member is such an astute politician and such a capable man with words, he could at least say he has clarified what it means but --
Mr. Martel: I clarified what it means. I am not suggesting for a moment that my friend was misleading the House.
The Deputy Chairman: I do not accept the word "distorting" as being parliamentary.
Mr. Martel: I simply said he was distorting some of the facts.
The Deputy Chairman: I would like the honourable member to withdraw the word "distorting."
Mr. Martel: I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, but I want to tell you, tomorrow you are going to come in here with a ruling that shows me the word "distorting" is not allowed in this House.
The Deputy Chairman: I appreciate that the honourable member has withdrawn. The minister may continue.
Mr. Martel: But you are going to bring in a precedent tomorrow that shows that "distorting" --
The Deputy Chairman: I am satisfied.
Mr. Martel: No. You are not going to play your little game.
The Deputy Chairman: I am not playing any game. I am the Deputy Chairman of the House.
Mr. Martel: You are going to come in here tomorrow with some precedent that says "distorting" --
The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member has withdrawn, and I appreciate that.
Mr. Martel: You are going to show me where the precedent says that "distorting" is not allowed in this Legislature. All right? That is agreeable to you, I presume.
The Deputy Chairman: We can check the parliamentary background --
Mr. Martel: If you can find a precedent.
The Deputy Chairman: We will see what we can find. The minister will please continue.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Thank you for that brief intermission. I am glad the honourable member has corrected the record. I am not distorting the facts.
Mr. Martel: Now it is all right for the minister to say it, Mr. Chairman.
The Deputy Chairman: And that is what it is all about.
Mr. Martel: Yes, that is what it is all about.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I mentioned as I was replying to the member for Lake Nipigon that the CNR did indicate to us they were increasing their employment by 200. I am now informed that in 1985-86, the employment will be up to about 480. That is 70 more people than are employed in Hornepayne right now.
Mr. Martel: Do you believe that pigs fly?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is what they tell us. I have no reason to doubt their word. During the tough negotiations we had with the CNR during the development of this facility, when they made a deal, they lived up to that deal. I will make sure they do that in the future.
9:20 p.m.
I want to go on to discuss the concerns the member for Lake Nipigon has with respect to the development at Marathon, Manitouwadge and White River. I share his concern. There is going to be an influx of workers into that area of a kind we have not seen for some considerable time. I remind the member that those resources in northern Ontario belong to all the people of Ontario. I have a similar situation in Red Lake where something in the order of $50 million has come from the Campbell Red Lake gold mine but it does not really belong to the town of Red Lake, it has to be shared with all the people of Ontario. That is the way it is set up and that is the way it should be.
We are willing to share. We are northerners. If the south shares with us we will share with it, but we want the taxes that come out of that facility to find their way back through the consolidated revenue fund into development in northern Ontario. That is the route we have gone in the past and I think that is the route we will continue to take. There may be a requirement or special need such as for infrastructure. I am not suggesting for one moment the taxpayers of Ontario should pay for all the infrastructure costs at Marathon, which will be substantial, but there may be some public participation required.
We have a responsibility for the development of schools. There is no question about that. We will have to answer that need but I would have to point out the labour force will provide taxes to this province. To get an idea of what the return will be, in Detour Lake alone members will recall during my opening remarks I made the statement that some $660 million will be returned to the province over the life expectancy of Detour Lake, which is 20 years. That is $660 million in a 20-year period. That is a lot of tax dollars.
An additional $15 million will flow to the local economy of the Cochrane-Iroquois Falls area. Those mining developments do contribute handsomely to the tax base of Ontario. As northern members we have the right to go to the consolidated revenue fund through the various ministries and get our fair share of development dollars in northern Ontario. That is the route to go.
I am prepared to meet with people from the Tri-town area. I do not know what name they have been given but they are coming down early in the new year. I do not intend to replace the development dollars that should be provided by the private sector as we did at Pickle Lake, as the member for Lake Nipigon well knows. While we did assist on a partial basis with the sewer and water facilities in Pickle Lake, the housing developments were the 100 per cent responsibility of Umex Inc. That mine did close because of the economic downturn. The houses are sitting there waiting for that development to come back in. We know what has happened at Pickle Lake but nevertheless we give the incentive to develop that facility with some seed money and an infrastructure program.
We would be prepared to do the same thing in the Marathon, Manitouwadge and White River areas because there is going to be a need. There is just no question.
I remind members I have been around northern Ontario for 50-odd years now. I hear these comments about ghost towns. I really do not know where those ghost towns are. Where are the ghost towns? There are just blanket general statements that there are ghost towns. Go to Atikokan today and there are just as many people as there were three years ago. They are coming back.
The thing is a blanket condemnation of ghost towns. There are none. Those towns continue to remain in place. Sure the economic base changes considerably. I am aware of that but they are there. They are in place.
What do we do? Do we not develop that ore body even though we know it has a finite period of time? We knew that at Atikokan. As members have heard me say 1,000 times in this House, we knew the Atikokan development was a 30-year development program. They knew the day they took the first shovelful of iron ore out of Steep Rock Lake. That was 30 years ago. Wawa is the same way. Right now we are working with Wawa. We know the ore body is going to be exhausted somewhere down the road in 10 or 15 years and we are planning our economic development fund.
Members are voting $750,000 for this program. We will help them. The funds are there and we are on the right track. What we are doing in the single-resource communities of northern Ontario is being copied in other parts of Canada.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, since the minister has known about Detour Lake and Hemlo and the need to provide access to resources, the minister has known about all of this and has been involved in it. He knows of the extended care program. He knows how successful the air ambulance thing has been.
A lot of the infrastructure is provided by his ministry. If he accepts the philosophy that we do not tax the industry at the source but we do it in a roundabout way through the consolidated revenue fund and then siphon it back or direct it back to the Marathons and the White Rivers, how does he justify a reduction of $20,600,000 in this fiscal year when the need is greater than ever before?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am most pleased the honourable member brought this up. He has heard me answer this question during question period, I believe, when the estimates were first tabled. I pointed out to him at that time that when we developed we had the capital construction dollars, not only for Minaki Lodge but for Detour Lake, and these were add-ons. We went to the government at that time and saw a need to develop a major world-class recreation facility at Minaki. We took our case --
[Applause]
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Thank you very much.
Mr. Kerrio: René is one of the few people who can afford to stay there.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: You can afford it. With the salary the members opposite are getting, they can all stay there.
Mr. Piché: It is cheaper than living in Toronto.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes; he was there.
The point I am trying to make is these were specific add-ons to our budget to develop Minaki Lodge and to build Detour Lake. When we pleaded with the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), Management Board and the Premier to add this to our budget, it was for those specific purposes. We cannot build that into our base for ever. It would be dishonest on our part. I do not think it would be right. We got the money to develop Minaki Lodge and we did it. We got the money to build Detour Lake, some $30 million over a two-year period, and we did it. So it has to come off.
I would love it to stay. As we add on major programs like that, if we could add it on to our base it would be great. I would be the first one to cheer. But I do not think it would be correct.
Mr. Stokes: Given the minister's tax philosophy, is he going to come in with supplementary estimates to provide the infrastructure needs for the Manitouwadges, the Marathons and the White Rivers in the forthcoming fiscal year? We cannot wait until 1985 for these things to get under way. We do not want everybody living in tents up there.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am most anxious to meet with the steering committee and the planning groups up there to see how this ministry can assist in the development of that major development in that area. If there is a need for some public funds to develop infrastructure, we will find the dollars to do it.
Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, I have an area of concern that I have raised as a perennial concern with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope). I am not one to keep running over the same side of the line where all the strength is. I have just run out of plays over on that side and I thought maybe the Minister of Northern Affairs might co-operate a little more with the concerns we have in relation to wildlife.
Before I get into that, though, the minister has gone at that Minaki Lodge thing once too often and I have to make a comment about that. I do not know why it surprises the minister that the members on this side, when they see something that is spectacular or impressive, are entitled to say what the member for Lake Nipigon said about Minaki Lodge. I do not think it has a thing to do with the economics of it or anything else.
I have to think that if the people in that part of northern Ontario had their druthers and they had $45 million to spend on a broader base, instead of creating 140 jobs for northern Ontarians and a big fat fee for the American consultants I am sure good-thinking people would have used that $45 million to provide many more jobs than they have.
9:30 p.m.
Let us go back to the truth of the matter. The management of this Conservative government for some reason withstands the worse kind of involvements. They put in $500,000; if they were prudent business people they would have taken their lumps and said, "We lost $500,000, we will let it go at that." Oh, no, they thought that to protect that $500,000 they would get Minaki Lodge open to the public and recover the $500,000 investment.
I have to say this and many things said in jest come to pass. I have a feeling that it is going to take 140 per cent occupancy to break even. I just have that kind of feeling, the investment is that bad. A true Conservative could hardly justify participating in such a venture.
It is a good thing Margaret Thatcher went home because she just would have to excommunicate all the people on that side. There just is not a Tory left anywhere in Ontario. The minister knows that and he cannot justify Minaki. No matter how he turns it, it did not provide jobs.
Certainly it is an edifice that we could all be proud of and we are not suggesting we are not, that Canadian pride will come through. The fact is we have invested $45 million to salvage a $500,000 investment and no matter how we turn it, no matter how beautiful the place is, we are not going to recover the investment. He should set that to rest and one time get up and say he has made a real big boo-boo and we have to buy it.
Mr. Eakins: If one writes to Minaki Lodge, one has to send the letter to Winnipeg.
Mr. Kerrio: Yes, I guess, or they may have an American office.
That is not the particular issue I wanted to bring to the minister's attention. The issue I would like to talk about is one that is very disturbing. When I think in terms of how a country or part of a country or a certain province gets a reputation, I think in terms of many years of exposure or providing some kind of facility that another jurisdiction does not have.
To those outdoors people who hear the term "northern Ontario," it immediately conjures up a vision of beautiful streams, nice woodlands and wildlife in abundance. I have to tell the minister that is the way it used to be, but is no longer. We now find a government that has been in place for 40 years, that has had the complete management in its hands. There is just no one else to blame for what has transpired in the wildlife responsibility that it has.
I am sure that if the northern members on his side were free to really say what was on their minds, they would agree with me that we have degenerated to the point where he now has to manage the hunters instead of the wildlife. That did not have to be. There has been an experience in Sweden with the regeneration of forests that took into account many things other than putting pulp through the big paper mill and polluting the streams. They went into wildlife management that put fire breaks into reforestation, that put in cover for wildlife and they certainly set aside enough to harvest pulp with. By doing that, in 25 years -- this is simple arithmetic, those people have been sitting there for 40 years -- the moose herd has proliferated to the point where they really have a serious problem on their highways of having too many moose because of the circumstances they provided for that wildlife.
The facts here are that this has not taken place, and it is strange how little messages come to us in a unique way. The Premier, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and I -- I do not know if the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) was there or not -- attended the opening of a paper recycling plant at the Thorold paper mill. By and large the top dogs at Ontario Paper are a little on the blue side and, of course, they were telling the Premier what a great and wonderful guy he was for helping with the financing of the project.
But a little message slipped out, inadvertently or not I do not know; maybe they are not politically oriented and did not realize that some of us would use some of the material that was given us on that date. One of the very senior executives of Ontario Paper got up, made a wonderful speech and told us how they were now going to be able to take newsprint and recycle it and that this was very timely because their pulp supply was beginning to dwindle. Who would ever have thought that in Ontario, of all jurisdictions, we would be concerned about a pulpwood supply? There are strange contradictions in all of this as it unfolds before us.
The minister mentioned to the member for Lake Nipigon that he could take money from the consolidated revenue fund and do things with it because the tax dollars were coming in from the mining companies. The Minister of Natural Resources said that he cannot put a fishing licence in place because he cannot use the money, since it goes into the consolidated revenue.
The minister is nodding "yes," but I am asking, if the Minister of Northern Affairs can do it, why can the Minister of Natural Resources not do it? The people are crying for a fishing licence and for the stocking of our streams.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt just to correct the honourable member, what I did say was that tax dollars flow into the consolidated revenue fund and it is up to us as specific ministers to budget and get our share of that fund to spend on our particular programs.
Mr. Kerrio: Exactly.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: There are no dedicated funds per se.
Mr. Eakins: So you cannot do it for fishing.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, that is exactly right.
Mr. Kerrio: I understand exactly what the minister said, and I do not want them to dedicate funds completely. But I am sure that if there were a fishing licence and certain numbers of dollars were put into consolidated revenue from that source, the minister would be able to justify spending those funds on the stocking of our streams.
It really is a sad, sad story that now people are beginning to hunt in Pennsylvania, in New York state. They are doing a much better job than we are in northern Ontario in what were considered barren lands as far as wildlife is concerned. It is just hard to believe that there are now many people who leave our jurisdiction to go south to hunt.
I would like to impress on the minister the need for forest management that would include wildlife, that would include more dedication to our streams and to cleaning up our streams, that would allow the fish to live in those streams.
I have to say this as another aside. The Minister of Natural Resources is boasting about the fact that we have private clubs participating in fish stocking. With the numbers of people who come to Ontario, to what used to be one of the great fishing spots on the continent, it is hard to believe that a government that turns over $25 billion has to look to private clubs to do some of the stocking.
9:40 p.m.
I wonder if the minister would take it upon himself, having the interests he does, as I do -- I take much of my leisure in northern Ontario; I certainly feel pretty proud of that because while some of the minister's fellow caucus members are basking in the Florida sunshine I may be up in Temagami or Timmins or some of those northern communities doing some skidooing and fishing. I do not expect I will be staying at Minaki unless my friend the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) decides he is going to entertain some of the members.
I think I have a legitimate concern about the Minister of Natural Resources just being an apologist for what is happening to our northern reforestation. I would hope he might get aggressive and say he has an interest in the monetary aspects of northern Ontario. As he talks with pride about the wonders that are provided there for the visitor, I would hope he would lead a kind of resurgence for northern Ontario to get the forest back in a way that wildlife will proliferate there and tell the man behind him who is in charge of environment and who gives us the baloney about how safe the drinking water here is in Lake Ontario that we cannot eat the fish. That is a bit of a contradiction, is it not?
The minister prints all kinds of brochures to tell one to be careful about eating the fish. Somewhere there is a message there. It gets a little confusing because there are some very astute consultants who come into this picture, brought in by some of the people who are supposed to protect our environment. However, we find out that the simplest test of all is the old miner's test: when that little canary goes feet up in the cage, one knows one had better get out of there because the air is not too good. Now it has come full circle: some of the best research facilities in the world test for water quality with small fish.
While his colleague says the water is safe in Niagara and Lake Ontario, it just seems very strange that the commercial fishermen had to stop selling the fish and were cautioned to eat just once a week some of the fish that come out of that water. Facetiously, I said they are going to have provide drinking water for the fish pretty soon because the water is not safe to drink.
Mr. Stokes: You will not like this, but we finished those estimates last week.
Mr. Kerrio: That does not matter because I have not been able to do that with that other minister. He has not budged. But I thought this minister, because of his interest in northern Ontario, might take the initiative in --
Mr. Stokes: We do not want to hear those estimates again.
Mr. Kerrio: That is fine, but I have a particular interest here because I have tried three times on that other minister and now I am asking the Minister of Northern Affairs to see whether he could add his good offices to those many hundreds of people out there who would like to see the quality of life in northern Ontario improve, not only for the residents but for the visitors who would bring in untold numbers of dollars to help that northern community.
I hope the minister might take some of those comments into account and, if not for me, maybe for future generations have Ontario regarded as the great paradise for the outdoorsman that it used to be.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: If I could respond to the honourable member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), may I thank him for his participation in these estimates and his interest in northern Ontario generally. I appreciate that.
For a member coming from one of the more southerly parts of this great province, he made some comment with respect to northern Ontario and the image we have or the attitude. He said it is a playground, a paradise of beautiful lakes and streams, and has all the good things and the quality of life we know so much about.
I have to tell him I get very annoyed when I get up in the morning, turn the radio on and hear the weather report coming in from these Toronto radio stations saying there is snow coming in from northern Ontario. There is a blast of cold air and it is coming from northern Ontario. Anything that is bad that happens in Toronto is coming from northern Ontario.
We should be regarded as western Ontario; we should not be northern Ontario. Those people have no right to call Chatham and Windsor western Ontario. That is southern Ontario. Winnipeg is western Canada. We are 140 miles from Winnipeg. That should be western Ontario. Perhaps the attitude would be a little different down here.
I do not know if they would be so quick to point out that ice and snow come from western Ontario. They might change their attitude a little. It is bad publicity. I hope some day the media will look at it differently and say some different things about what comes down from northern Ontario. All the beauty, the strength and the quality of life to which the member refers are really there. There is no question about that. The daily reports that come on the radio sometimes discourage me as they relate to weather.
I also want to comment on the funds that were spent at Minaki Lodge because this constantly comes up. I have to say the millions of dollars that were spent on Minaki were not sent to the moon. We did not take the $30 million-odd and blow it somewhere.
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Wait a minute. The architects, the planners and the designers were from northern Ontario. All the major contracts for that facility were from northern Ontario. All the employees who rebuilt Minaki Lodge were from northern Ontario. All the material, or 98 per cent of it, was bought in Ontario. The jobs were created in Ontario for northern Ontario people. Is there something wrong with that?
We built a road to Minaki and that road goes to the Whitedog Indian reserve. I dare any one of the members over there to deny that Whitedog reserve should have a good road. Not one member would stand in his place and say it was not worth the $13 million to provide our native people with a good road; he would not.
Is there something wrong with developing a nice airstrip and airport at a strategic spot in northern Ontario to serve that vast tourist area? I can only say, do what the member for Lake Nipigon did. He went to Minaki. He came and he saw. Do not listen to the Toronto media because one scribe says it is a white elephant. He will not go up and look at it, but if So-and-so said it, it must be true. They copy what the other guy said and the first thing one knows, the three major newspapers are calling it a white elephant because they do not have the wherewithal, the guts or the courage to go up and look at it and do some decent research. The member for Lake Nipigon did and he wrote "fantastic."
Mr. Eakins: Why does one have to write to Winnipeg for reservations?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: One does not; one writes to Minaki.
Mr. Eakins: They advertise Winnipeg.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Minaki was not developed for the market in Toronto. The market is Winnipeg, Minneapolis, Milwaukee and Chicago. Within 700 miles of Minaki, we have a drawing population of close to 70 million people. A lot of people do not realize that. It is not the Torontos or the Hamiltons that will keep Minaki Lodge filled. There is no way; we do not need them. We will draw from Winnipeg, Minneapolis, Kenora, Milwaukee, Chicago and Des Moines, Iowa. That is what is going to fill Minaki. The foreign dollars Minaki Lodge will bring in will help the balance of payments. There is no question about that. The member should be my guest and come up and see.
I also appreciate the member's comments and concerns about wildlife in northern Ontario. While it is not part of these estimates, I will make sure my colleague is made aware of his concerns. As one who is an ardent fisherman and hunter, I do not have any trouble shooting moose. This year is the first year in 15 years I did not go out. I have shot a moose for the last 14 years in a row. I have always got my moose.
In fact, coming to Queen's Park today, I drove from Hudson to Sioux Lookout. What did I see this morning at about 6:30? There were four beautiful moose on the highway. My son drove me to the airport, and there they were. There is an abundance of wildlife, but one has to come up to see it and participate.
9:50 p.m.
I have a summer camp on Big Vermilion Lake. It is a beautiful lake. It is a lake-trout lake. I have no difficulty getting my three lake trout any time the season is open. In the middle of July, August or in the spring, I have never had any difficulty getting my limit of lake trout. But one has to fish and work at it.
I am very confident that the Ministry of Natural Resources is as concerned as the member about the future of wildlife. They are improving their management practices on a regular basis with regard to moose. We know they have management zones right across northern Ontario. They are trying to improve the habitat. They are changing the seasons and the bag limit and they are charging more for the licences needed by nonresidents coming to hunt. On all fronts they are moving in the right direction.
I have to tell the member, as it relates to wildlife, not to believe everything he hears about Sweden. I went to Sweden about four or five years ago because I used to hear from these fellows over here about how great things were in Sweden. I took it upon myself to go to Sweden and I was shocked and amazed at the problems they have in that so-called socialist country. They do not have the answers to all the problems. When I got there, I found they had problems galore.
I recited the problems they have chapter and verse about four or five years ago in this House. I have never heard any more about Sweden. That was the end of Sweden. Come to Minaki. Do not bother going to Sweden. There is all kind of wildlife in northern Ontario. If the member has any difficulty, I will be his guide.
Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to shock the minister or the members, but I would like to ask a question about the estimates, the dollars I see in front of me on page 4 of the estimates book. The actual for 1982-83 is listed as $180,295,111. The estimates for next year are indicated to be $158,457,900, leaving a net difference of $21,837,211. The major areas of cutback are in economic development, transportation and community development. I would hope in the remaining 35 or 40 minutes we have in these estimates we might get some elaboration on those three areas and why there is less money budgeted throughout the estimates in those three major areas.
The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) may have a comment to make -- perhaps I have cut him off by jumping up at this point -- but if he has something to say, while it is nice to wander around the lobbies of our Minaki minds for an hour or so, it is very bloody unproductive when it comes to looking at the dollars we are supposed to be talking about. Let us get on with the dollar estimates.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think the member will recall I mentioned to the member for Lake Nipigon that there was a reduction with respect to the capital dollars used for Minaki Lodge and Detour Lake. In other words, we had some added on because we went to Treasury and Management Board and through the process to ask for special capital funds to develop Minaki Lodge and the Detour Lake project. We felt that was very significant. We did not have it in our base budget. It was an add-on. We were given these extra funds over a two-year basis. Once those projects are complete, then we will go back to square one.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, my friend across the way makes a great deal about Minaki Lodge and the money that is spent; yet earlier this evening he refused to indicate to the Legislature about that great promise for the people of Minaki that they would have the jobs. My understanding is six whole people from Minaki are working there. He can brag about it.
We were in Winnipeg and the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) drove from Winnipeg to see Minaki. He could not afford to stay the night and he came back to Winnipeg.
Mr. Ruston: Oh, now, that was just when I was working in the courtroom.
Mr. Martel: Well, he could not.
I want to deal if I could with the idea some of us proposed when this ministry was created. As my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon was talking about a while ago, some of us proposed funding because all of us in the resource field know that once one the first shovelful is taken, it is the beginning of the end.
This ministry and this government should be setting funds aside. We tried to move such a motion. We called it a tomorrow fund for want of a better name. When that last shovelful came out of the ground, there would be a slush fund with which to establish another industry in that municipality rather than watch it go down the tube.
This government can argue that over the years it has done well. In fact, it has not. One can look at Elliot Lake, which went down the tube for 10 years and people lost their shirts. People walked away from houses and simply boarded them up. Their investment was gone. Worker after worker as well as small businessman after small businessman lost their shirts. One could go beyond that municipality. One could go to the town of Capreol, which is having terrible times because of Canadian National and a mining industry.
CN conned the government in Hornepayne. The minister can get up and quote Red MacLellan all he wants, but when the railroad simply moves people out, after allowing things to develop as they did in the town of Capreol, he has problems. They put additions on two schools, opened up subdivisions, put an addition on the high school and then CN decided it was going systematically to take one department after another to pieces and reduce it.
Those people who remain in that municipality pick up the tax tab. That is what is happening in Capreol and that is what is going to happen in Hornepayne. That is what happened in Elliot Lake and in Kirkland Lake. The list is endless.
What we are saying is that this government should have a policy. My friend the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) has the same problem in his own municipality. After being in power for 40 years, somewhere along the line this government is going to have to get enough sense to do a little taxing, to have a little reserve so that when an industry in a one-industry town closes down we have the funds to establish something else to take its place.
That is why we moved that motion when the Ministry of Northern Affairs was created. The minister can do what he did at Atikokan when he ran around and tried desperately to get in something. He could get a bakery, which would create 10 jobs. But in a one-industry town one cannot resolve the economic problems with a bakery and a little bit of Ontario Hydro which, I understand, will close eventually anyway. That created 70 jobs, but how many were lost in the mines? That amounted to 600.
That is why for years we have urged this government to establish a policy which would have set some funds aside because we know that in all one-industry towns in the north, there is a termination date. This government ignored our motion when this ministry was created. It voted against it and it still does not have any reserve against the inevitable in northern Ontario.
This government stands condemned. No Tory back-benchers ever have the guts to get up and say the same thing, although they then fight and scream as they are doing in Cochrane to try to get another industry in a plant that has closed down. But if there was a reserve there, a fund which the government could draw on to establish a new industry, it would protect the capital investment of the home owners, the workers and so on. Is it too much to extract a surcharge from the resource industry, whether it be forestry or mining, and slowly build up that fund? No, the government comes cap in hand, as the municipalities have, to try to save them.
10 p.m.
I listened to the member for Cochrane North talk about the plan for a committee for a plant up there and how he will be serving on the committee. It is all wishful thinking. If there was a reserve fund or a tax on the resource base that would leave us with some capital available to develop something, then we would be doing something sensible. This government votes against it all the time, as it did when we moved the amendments when this ministry was created. It will not do it. It allows these municipalities to suffer the anguish or workers to be wiped out when their only equity after a lifetime of working is their homes. They can walk away, board them up and leave them.
The minister says, "Name another town." The biggest ghost town in northern Ontario was created by this government. I remind the minister that they closed Burwash with its 200 jobs and walked away from it after spending $4.5 million the year they closed it. They thought nothing of it, and it sits there like a white elephant, empty, with a new gym with three basketball courts on it and new quarters for staff, 42 rooms, which have never been used except for three months. There are all of the houses with new windows, doors and new aluminum siding. It sits there vacant.
They opened a new institution in the riding of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) at the same time they were closing one down in the riding of Sudbury East and wiping out 200 jobs. Let the minister tell me about the planning and thinking that goes on.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Are you crying again?
Mr. Martel: I am not crying. I am talking about the realities.
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
Mr. Martel: Watch a whole town get wiped out; that is all right. This government has an investment of tens of millions of dollars there, and the facility is sitting there and has sat there vacant for the last seven years. Let the minister tell me about it.
I want to talk about three other very minor points. With respect to the transportation system from Capreol right through to Sioux Lookout and so on, the minister knows there are three days of service: three days in one direction and three days coming back. It is a disgrace. The women sit in the bar car because it is one and the same, and people are just hammered out of their heads; they bring their own drinks.
I was on the train because the crews asked me to travel on it. There are little kids in the seats, and the cursing and swearing that goes on in those trains is unbelievable.
Does the minister know what the meals are? Hot dogs, canned stew and canned spaghetti. There is not even a tray to put it on; they put it on the window ledge. One woman who was riding the train had hot soup spilled into her lap; there is not even a tray. They start to get drunk around Hornepayne and they come through to Capreol. The train crew cannot work because they have a liquor bar running up and down the aisle. There is half a coach and half a baggage car. If you happen to be a hunter and it is full, you leave your moose beside the tracks; and if it happens to be cold, it is too bad. The night my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and I travelled on it they were so plastered they could not stand up. The crew could not work.
This goes on, and this is the minister responsible for northern affairs. If you wrote to the former federal Minister of Transport, Jean-Luc Pépin, you might as well have talked to the wall. All the federal minister does is write Via, and Via prepares an answer for him. I have forgotten more about railroading than Jean-Luc Pépin or that clown from Via who writes those letters to me will ever know.
What happens to the tourist industry along those routes when there is no access by road and every second day people cannot go in or come out? It destroys the whole tourist industry along that route. In fact, there is a consumer group that travelled some 7,000 miles by rail last year in Ontario and the rest of Canada and they said the worst passenger service in all of Canada was in northern Ontario. That was their conclusion.
I hear the platitudes about this service. If people in southern Ontario knew what it was like to get out of a community only every second day, stuck where there is no way of getting out because there are no roads, one might find that they were a little more sensitive to the needs of people who make that tourist industry viable in northern Ontario. If they were not there, those tourist bucks would not be coming into this province.
What was the great promise? Passenger service in perpetuity. That is what we were promised. Every second day on a stinking little train is a disgrace. The crews are so disgusted they cannot work. In fact, if a brakeman is missing, they go without him; so there is a two-man crew. We travelled on a holiday weekend very deliberately. People were literally standing in the aisle because they did not put on an extra coach.
I got a letter from a woman recently who said the service is so bad that they took four taxicabs to take the passengers from Ottawa as far as Pembroke. Then they filled up that great famous Budd car, and people stood from Ottawa to North Bay before they got a seat, which is contrary to every safety rule in the railway.
We write to Jean-Luc Pépin and Via and they give us nonsense answers. They say it is unfortunate. They cannot make predictions on how many passengers there are going to be. But the railway crews who are working there, realizing they need an extra car, do not have the authority until they get permission from Via to put on another car. Via will not give it; they will allow up to 30 people to stand.
Where are we? Where is this government after its report on transportation? I guess that is why the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) moved his request for a commissioner to deal with northern transportation. The service to people in northern Ontario stinks; it is a disgrace. How the tourist industry lasts and how the people survive, the government could not care less. If it did, it would not put up with it as a government.
In Toronto, they will put on the GO Transit, or something else, to move people in a decent manner, but not in northern Ontario; they can ride around in cattle cars.
I want to talk about one other point, the local roads boards. This year, if there is additional funding, is the minister going to make it possible for local roads boards --
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Local service boards?
Mr. Martel: Local service boards or local roads boards; both.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Road boards are under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.
Mr. Martel: I understand that. I am talking about local roads boards. I understand that they come under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, but the funding for government works projects under the Canada-Ontario employment development program comes through the Ministry of Northern Affairs; it has a large influence. Those local roads boards can get funding for roads, only from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. There is nothing else in those communities. There is no other authority.
I am wondering whether this minister could take it upon himself, when the programs come out, to see to it that those local roads boards are aware that there is a mechanism upon which they might be able to draw to provide some service.
The one I am thinking about in particular in my own area, because I have had great difficulty with it, is brush clearing along roads where school buses are travelling. The local roads board does not have enough funding to do the job, and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications will not do it. That could be a meaningful job in those areas. More important, it would clear the rights of way so there is less danger to the young people riding those school buses.
Although we tried to get some last year, it was not possible. I am hoping when the minister reviews whatever might be forthcoming in the next fiscal year, he could ensure that if local roads boards make applications, they will be processed in the same fashion as those people who have authority, whether it be a local services board or a municipal form of government.
Finally, has the minister decided whether he is going to give me a fire truck for Awrey?
10:10 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member left the most difficult question to the last.
If I might respond to the comments of the member for Sudbury East about the tomorrow fund or some other name he used. He referred to it as a slush fund. I would not go along with that description. Nevertheless, I gather what he means is a fund that would be designated for future concerns and considerations that may be required by single-industry communities when those resources are exhausted.
Mr. Martel: And taxing the resource base to do it.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Basically we have that in place today and it is under the Ministry of Northern Affairs. We have a regional priority budget. I am just going through the list. I was talking to my deputy minister a few moments ago and we went through the list very quickly. This is a list off the top of our heads; I do not have any documentation, but I want to put it on the record because it represents a significant amount of assistance. It has done exactly what the member's fund would do.
I will start with Elliot Lake. We have seen the development of Rio Algom and Denison mines in the last few years as a major expansion. The taxpayers could not carry the responsibility for major infrastructure requirements that the new population would demand. The mining companies were being taxed. We can argue about the level of taxation, but we came up with the necessary funds, $3 million over a period of time, to make it happen. That is on top of what the Ministry of the Environment put in place for its requirements.
Mr. Martel: You did not put new business in there.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: We put it in there and the communities and homes are there.
What did we do? We put $250,000 into Kirkland Lake for the same reason, because the local people could not afford it. The Ministry of the Environment would provide only a specific grant which is a firm fixed program. We topped it up. We topped up Red Lake with close to $1 million on top of what MOE would put in there for sewer and water structures.
In Fort Frances, development was literally curtailed and stopped because it had no sewer and water services and no water tank. They received $1 million from the Ministry of Northern Affairs to make it happen.
What did we do in Matheson? We did the same thing. They were entitled to so many dollars under the grant formula of the Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Transportation and Communications. The local tax base was so small they could not afford it. We put in $200,000. The member knows very well what we did at Atikokan. After the ore was exhausted, there is still a town of 5,000 people flourishing in Atikokan today because of our assistance and because of the 15 new industries that are established in business there. They are small businesses, but they are operating, manufacturing. and creating jobs.
Mr. Martel: How much did the town go down?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Certainly it went down, but there are other economic bases and other places they can go.
Mr. Martel: That is what I am talking about and the type of fund I am talking about. You are talking about a totally different thing.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are not ghost towns.
Pickle Lake is another example and the member for Lake Nipigon will be familiar with this. When Umex moved out there was a sewer and water debt that town could not support or carry. Who came up with the money? We took it out of our tomorrow fund, call it what one will. Northern Affairs bailed that community out.
What did we do in Schreiber? Ask the member for Lake Nipigon. It is his home community. Schreiber could not make the sewer and water project happen. We put up the necessary funds and made it happen. In Hearst, we put in a sewer and water facility that brought a new industry to Hearst. The Woodex operation in Hearst was made possible with funding from the Ministry of Northern Affairs. In Longlac, we put up the necessary few dollars to tie the water facilities from the town to the Indian reserve to make it happen.
The member knows what we did in Hornepayne. We put in over $3 million in a unique pilot northern Ontario development in Hornepayne. One million dollars was paid by the Ministry of Northern Affairs for a new treatment plant in Blind River; from the tomorrow fund or from Northern Affairs, it is exactly the same thing. The member knows what we did at Gore Bay and even what we did in Valley East when it wanted an industrial park.
Mr. Martel: What?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Who came up with one third of the money? It was the Ministry of Northern Affairs helped put it there. They came to us. It was not there before we had the Ministry of Northern Affairs; the money was not available. The member's fund for tomorrow is right here, resting in the Ministry of Northern Affairs.
Mr. Martel: Today, yes.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I agree with the member's comments with respect to Via Rail, 100 per cent. Via Rail as it relates to rail passenger service in northern Ontario is a total disaster. Through my area and through the Dryden area it is a total disaster, and we should lay it on the doorstep of the federal government.
I hope the official opposition of this province will yell and scream, go down to Ottawa to their cousins and plead with them to look at a decent rail system for this country. Please, I implore them; I beg them. The federal government will not listen to us or the third party, but maybe it will listen to them.
We are doing all we can with the Ontario Northland Railway. We have good service in northeastern Ontario. My colleague the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) passed a resolution but he did not condemn the ONR. He complimented it on what it is doing because it is providing good rail service in northeastern Ontario. The modern Trans-European Express train service is second to none on the North American continent. We have great plans.
Mr. Martel: You can have an Amtrak in the rest of northern Ontario. Why can't we do the same as Amtrak? They do it in southern Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: We are doing great things in northeastern Ontario with our rail service.
There are greater things coming. But I tell the member that this Legislature should come down hard and firm on the federal government and Via Rail with respect to rail transportation in this country. I wish private members would stand up every Thursday and bring in a private member's resolution condemning the federal government on the rail passenger service in this province.
Mr. Martel: What is the minister doing about it?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am phoning, I am writing and I am screaming at every opportunity. We are doing studies. We are doing everything. It is their responsibility but the federal government is too prone and are anxious to opt out and pass the responsibility to somebody else. They have a transportation responsibility and we are going to hold them to it.
Getting back to the other item the honourable member referred to with respect to local roads boards and local services boards, he is suggesting the local roads board be considered for grants under the Local Services Boards Act. I regret that cannot happen. We discussed that during the setting up of the boards themselves. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications gave them the sole, total, exclusive responsibility for roads. If there is a group of people who want to form a local services board, they can be my guest. We will be there to help them tomorrow morning.
Mr. Martel: Yes. I was there, if the minister will recall.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I know. Just give us a nucleus, a pocket of population and we will set up a local services board that will guarantee them one for one on their operational costs.
If it is explained to them and sold to them, it is better than the local roads board. These can qualify for the various programs that we have. the Canada-Ontario employment development program and the new employment expansion and development program, which are designed to help them on the little programs the member made reference to.
With respect to the member's fire truck for Awrey, my answer is yes, in the next fiscal year.
Mr. Martel: I thank the minister.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member is welcome.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions with regard to the Hallmark Hornepayne Town Centre, which I know was discussed earlier. I will not go on at length about it, but I notice from Hansard that the minister says I heap bouquets on it. I certainly agree that the services which are needed in Hornepayne have been provided through this centre. However, I am concerned about the comments in the auditor's report with regard to the initial need for feasibility studies which he says were not carried out.
I would like to know if that is the case. I know the auditor is still awaiting the official response of the ministry to that. Is it the case that initially feasibility studies were not completed? Could the minister tell us the operating deficit for the public facilities in the centre over the last year?
I understand that as of last week the interim agreement between the municipality and the ministry was extended for another year under which the ministry would continue to operate the centre pending the final resolution of the question of the leases. I would like to know what those figures are so we will have some idea of the costs over the next year. Perhaps the minister could explain what he sees, on the part of his ministry now, for the possibility of resolving the question of the leases with regard to the high school, the library, the swimming pool complex and that sort of thing, the public sector facilities which are municipal.
Does it look as if there is going to be a resolution of that? If so, what kind of time frame are we looking at? What is the cost in terms of the deficit for last year?
10:20 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Hornepayne centre, we did have considerable discussion on the project itself. I placed on the record the information on the size of the complex, the magnitude of the complex, the amount of planning in that development, the thrust of it being a pilot project, a unique project for northern Ontario, because people such as the honourable member are constantly asking for special, unique programs in northern Ontario to meet those special needs. We did answer that call. Some in-depth studies were done by Canadian National with respect to its portion of the operation. Hallmark Hotels did its own studies.
With respect to the government's requirements in the centre itself, the need for a feasibility study as such was not that real. All we were doing was taking into account those facilities, such as the liquor store and the Ontario Provincial Police facilities, the need for a hospital, public health services and a library. A formal feasibility study would not really affect that because those are ongoing costs and requirements of the community.
In some instances we may have advanced the need for a new facility. In other words, I think the OPP could have stayed in their own facility for another three or four years, but we had to cut that time short. We did the actual feasibility study in our review of the requirements of each separate ministry, and there were something like eight ministries, but it is in place.
I think the honourable member will agree the official opening was a success. I was most pleased to have him there to heap bouquets on the government. The co-ordinating efforts of my ministry brought the federal government, CN and Hallmark Hotels to the table as well as eight other ministries. It is a very complex leasing agreement, as he well knows because he was part and parcel of some of those decisions.
I am told the operating deficit for last year is about $107,000. I was not aware we were going to go on for another year; we had to do that because there was some uncertainty on the part of the municipality as to what the deficit would be. That is very fair. We were trying to be fair and reasonable; we would operate it for a time and then the municipality would have an opportunity to see what its ongoing cost would be.
I am sure we can resolve our differences. I understand discussions are still continuing and we hope to resolve those differences very shortly.
Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I would like to expand on the rest of what I said at the opening and recall for the minister that at that time I pointed to the comments which had been made by the then Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs prior to the establishment of his ministry. It had assured the municipality that the additional assessment from the private portion of the centre and the accruing municipal taxation would balance off the operating cost and that there would not be additional cost to the local ratepayers. I mentioned that at the opening, as I know the minister recalls.
If he is looking at a deficit in the range of more than $100,000 for the first year -- and I think a lot of that has to do with the operation of the recreational facilities, especially the swimming pool -- I hope we can resolve those questions of the leases on the basis on which the municipal council went into this, namely, that it would not see significant increases in local taxes in order to maintain the operation of the centre which does, as I fully agree, provide services that were badly needed in the community and which has enhanced the amenities in the community.
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, for the few minutes we have left, I want to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs if he monitors the activities of other agencies? I have a copy of the northern Ontario rural development agreement annual report. I know there was some funding made available through it for tourism, agriculture and for other entrepreneurs. Does the minister monitor the figures put out by the Ontario Development Corp. through the Ministry of Industry and Trade?
Interjections.
Mr. Ruston: Let us have a bit of order here.
The Deputy Chairman: Order.
Mr. Stokes: The minister may be aware that the schedule of loans and guarantees accepted for the month of December of this year shows eight loans from the Ontario Development Corp. for southern Ontario, creating 152 jobs. The loans and guarantees approved were in the amount of $1,864 million. For the same period in eastern Ontario, there were four loans, creating 73 jobs, and approved financial considerations of $1.070 million. For the Northern Ontario Development Corp., there were four loans, creating only 21 jobs, and financial commitments on behalf of NODC for $442,000, less than 25 per cent of the amount allocated for southern Ontario and about one third of what was committed from the fund for the Eastern Ontario Development Corp.
I would like to ask the minister if he has anybody in his ministry who monitors those statistics, as I do, from month to month. We consistently lag behind. It is quite understandable that we may lag behind southern Ontario, but we consistently lag behind eastern Ontario.
I do not know what the population breakdown is, but what does it say about the entrepreneurial skills of people in northern Ontario when we cannot come up with the kinds of ideas, the kind of product development, the kind of market development, the utilization of indigenous resources so that we can create new products, develop new markets and, in the process, produce jobs and diversify the economy of northern Ontario?
I am sorry we do not have sufficient time to get into the areas I think we should. Maybe we can do that privately. But these statistics consistently disillusion me. What is wrong with us in northern Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Bernier: In answer to the member for Lake Nipigon, I watch those statistics as sharply as he does and I must admit I have some concern that more is not being advanced by NODC. If we continually get 25 or 30 per cent of what is being given to southern or eastern Ontario, on a population basis we are doing very well. But as a frontier area, as a developing area, I think we should be much higher than that.
I would have to agree with the member that our managerial and entrepreneurial people are just not aggressive enough, and I have said that to them many times. Many of them are a little frightened about getting into bed with the government on some of these programs, I know that. We have tried in a number of cases with our economic development programs, as we did on Manitoulin Island, to go in and assist a number of small entrepreneurs with marketing, management and administrative skills and let them actually do the work.
We go that far down the ladder, actually to do their particular work for them. While they can make beautiful widgets, they have no marketing and bookkeeping skills. That is what is lacking in northern Ontario. I think we should be encouraging those entrepreneurs to pound the door on those programs. I take it upon myself to let them know they are available and to encourage them.
The northern Ontario rural development agreement took a long time to get off the ground. It took about a year and a half before it caught on. I personally kept sending out brochures and we put advertisements in the papers encouraging them. Finally, it caught on and now it is going great guns, but it expires at the end of March. I share the member's concern.
Votes 701 to 704, inclusive, agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman: That completes consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Bernier, the committee of supply reported certain resolutions.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.