Hansard Transcript 1986-Feb-07 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Pope: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) made a statement, and I am quoting from Instant Hansard:

"The reality is that if a transfer application had been made, it would have been made before this government was in office, as a practical matter, but that is not the answer and I do not hold the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) responsible for what happened."

First, this matter was not brought to my attention by the law officers of the crown during the all-too-brief time I was Attorney General. If it had been, it would have been in adult court.

Second, the Attorney General's statement, which I just read, is not in conformity with subsections 16(1) and 16(7) of the Young Offenders Act, which indicate that an application may be made to remove the matter from the young offenders' court to an adult court at any time before judgement.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the member that this is not a point of privilege. Often we allow a point of personal explanation if one is correcting one's own record. However, I believe you were trying to correct something else.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I was incorrect. My learned friend was in office for only 39 days, and it is correct to say that he, his predecessor or I could have made the determination. I am confident that the right course was taken by the fact that neither Mr. McMurtry nor the member for Cochrane South acted in this way.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Hon. Mr. Scott: As part of the government's ongoing commitment to consult widely with all interested groups before we formulate legislation to implement pay equity in the private and broader public sector, I am pleased to announce to this House the formation of two advisory committees on pay equity.

These two groups shall be known as the Premier's Business Advisory Committee on Pay Equity and the Premier's Labour Advisory Committee on Pay Equity. They will meet regularly with the Premier (Mr. Peterson), myself and senior government officials to expedite the free flow of ideas and exchange of information that our government believes is essential to the successful achievement of pay equity in this province.

Among the issues to be addressed by the advisory committees are the need for uncomplicated administrative guidelines for job evaluation, which will serve the needs of business and labour; the need to differentiate between legitimate supply and demand considerations and wage discrimination in pay, and the need to develop systems that will assist in the implementation of pay equity within the framework of the existing collective bargaining process.

Our government recognizes that both business and labour may have implementation concerns and constructive advice about the application of this government's commitment to pay equity that must be addressed, and addressed speedily, at the highest levels of government.

The Premier personally desires to hear those views from the leaders in both industry and labour who will be involved in implementing the principle of pay equity in a practical manner in the work place. Pay equity is a major issue of our times. It is likely to have a significant impact on all sectors of the province. The formation of these two advisory committees demonstrates our government's commitment to open government and a policy of direct personal consultation with all interested parties on major issues such as this.

The consultation process will complement the public hearing process that will begin next week in five regional centres throughout Ontario.

I would like to table the names of the members of the Premier's Business Advisory Committees on Pay Equity and the Premier's Labour Advisory Committee on Pay Equity. We are confident these two committees will prove to be a significant resource for government as we turn to developing our implementation strategy.

In addition, I sincerely hope the direct access to the Premier and his advisers afforded by the creation of these committees will help allay the concerns of those who fear pay equity will be accomplished unilaterally by a stroke of the legislative pen.

As I have told this House several times in the past few months, the issue is not whether pay equity will be achieved, but how. The commitment to its achievement has been made. We have already embarked on a program of consultation with all concerned groups and individuals. Only when that process has been completed will we proceed to draft the legislation.

All legitimate concerns will be heard and acted upon. We are determined to implement this policy in a framework of fiscal responsibility. We will act to implement pay equity policy in a prudent manner, always bearing in mind our responsibility to all the people of the province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING HOME BEDS

Mr. Pope: We were told only two ministers would be absent. Is the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) here?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We are expecting him.

Mr. Pope: I will ask the Premier then.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The weather is not good. I would rather you waited until he arrives.

Mr. Pope: It does not matter.

I would like to ask the Premier a question about his priorities in health care in this province. He is quoted in the papers this morning as indicating he expects there to be full debate and discussion in the legislative committee that will be examining Bill 94 during the next six to eight weeks, and perhaps even beyond that. Given that fact, he is no doubt aware that last spring, about 10 months ago, the previous government announced the approval and funding of 4,500 additional nursing home beds in this province, including 1,570 in the following 18 months. Those needs were established by district health councils and the officials in the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Pope: The Minister of Health confirmed on December 11 in estimates that these beds had been put on hold for 10 months now and the number would be reduced below the 4,500.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Pope: Rather than spending his time in heating up the rhetoric with doctors and other health care providers of this province, why does the Premier not adjourn the debate on Bill 94 and negotiate with the doctors until the next session a package of universal accessibility to protect our senior citizens and those who are disadvantaged and bring into being these chronic care beds that are needed by the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I told the honourable member's leader yesterday, I am prepared to sit down with the Ontario Medical Association at any time it would like to discuss chronic care beds, accessibility, design of the system and many of the big issues that face this province, not just now but in the long term. I have been anxious to have that discussion for a long time. Certainly, chronic and nursing home beds are part of that. I am mindful of promises the former government made prior to the campaign, in the heat of the campaign and after May 2 as well. They had so many different positions on so many different issues during those days it is tough to figure out exactly which one the member is actually standing for.

10:10 a.m.

I can ask the minister to discuss the question of the nursing home beds allocation with the member. I do not know specific details on that, but I assure him we are prepared to discuss it with anybody. We are moving ahead on a number of fronts at the same time.

Mr. Rowe: The Premier may make light of those things, but 113 of the 4,500 beds were allocated for Simcoe county by the previous government. As a result of this government's failure to act on that commitment, we now have a critical situation at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie, a situation accurately described in Wednesday's Toronto Star.

When is the government going to stop using its highly paid aides as media flacks and start dealing with the real issues, such as the shortage of beds in the health care system in this province?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Does the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) remember the Windsor chronic care hospital? Remember those 20 years. What a bunch of hypocrisy.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: In all that flourish, the minister and I are not sure what the member's real concerns are. I cannot see the newspaper he is waving in front of me from here. If he wants to send that over, I will be happy to read it for him or to him. I will take the member's concerns to the minister.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The Tories might realize that had they banned extra billing when the Canada Health Act came in, the $50 million to pay for nursing home beds would already be in the Treasury of this province.

Instead of the government looking at putting expensive institutional beds, such as nursing home beds, in place and instead of the very limited home care programs for the frail elderly the government announced a couple of weeks ago, would it not make a lot more sense to have a universal program across this province to keep people out of chronic care hospitals and nursing homes?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member makes a good point. As we see it, it is going to require a multiplicity of strategies, not just one solution to the phenomenon of changing demographics and an ageing population. Our preference is for community-based, noninstitutional care. We demonstrated that commitment in the last budget. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) put forward $13 million in that regard -- he will correct me if I am wrong -- to demonstrate our commitment to those principles.

At the same time, there will be a need for new nursing home beds and chronic care beds, and we recognize that. There are phenomenal pressures right across the province and they are legitimate pressures. I can tell the member about the needs in Windsor and in many other communities.

The member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Rowe) will be aware, even though he is new in this House, that we inherited a legacy of inaction in this area and we are addressing this. If the member is suggesting that these problems developed in the past six months, I do not think even my friend opposite would have the temerity to stand in this House and make that suggestion.

Mr. Dean: Instead of fighting with the physicians in Hamilton-Wentworth and other parts of Ontario, in the light of the concern of many seniors' groups, including the Ontario Nursing Home Association, that nursing homes are having to care for more and more patients with Alzheimer's disease who require more care than the three or four hours of care per day they are set up to provide, why does the Premier not direct the Minister of Health to use his energies to provide the means to make it possible for nursing homes to provide proper care for Alzheimer's patients?

Can he tell this House what steps he is going to take to deal with the crucial shortage of adequate care for this tragically disabling disease?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member accuses me of fighting with the doctors. Then he suggests I am not working with the seniors. It is the seniors who support our position of ending extra billing. I saw a survey the other day -- and the member can correct me if I am wrong -- indicating that 68 per cent of seniors had been extra billed and that they strongly supported the position of this government. They are most anxious to have our support in that regard to protect their accessibility to quality medicine.

They are also aware of the tremendous pressures on the health care dollar and they are anxious to see the $50 million the province will get from the federal government put into chronic care beds, nursing homes and other things to improve the quality of health care.

Mr. Speaker, the member from Wentworth (Mr. Dean) has to learn to control his front bench. They are making so much noise it is tough for you and I to have a thoughtful dialogue on this subject.

YOUNG OFFENDER

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Attorney General with regard to the case that was discussed in this House yesterday under the Young Offenders Act. The Attorney General has told the House and every media outlet in Ontario that Judge Cecil Ball was wrong in his decision not to find the young offender insane. Having made this allegation, how can he expect anyone in Ontario to be tried in the courtroom of Judge Ball and have any confidence that his judgement will be correct? He has left a cloud over this judge and I ask him to clear it up now.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The conception that my friend has that judges are never wrong is not shared by either judges or lawyers. It is a fact that judges are frequently wrong. They are well-intentioned and do their best, but like even Conservative legislators, they are occasionally wrong. Judges are used to being told they are wrong. They are told by appeal courts day after day that their decisions are wrong.

The point I was making yesterday was that under this act there is no appeal permitted in the case of a finding of sanity or insanity. It was my view that an appeal should be allowed. I propose to ask the federal government to permit an appeal in cases of this type; but to say it is odd to say judges are wrong is just inconsistent with one thousand years of legal tradition.

Mr. Gillies: In the Attorney General's answers yesterday and today he has tried to shift the blame for blowing this case away to everybody but the crown and himself. I remind the minister that Judge Ball told the court and asked the crown attorney during the trial if the crown would like the case transferred to adult court and was told no.

Will the Attorney General admit to this House now that both he and the crown attorney blew it and that the adjudication of this case, which is unsatisfactory was not the fault of Judge Ball but the fault of the crown? It was the fault of the Attorney General and his officials.

Hon. Mr. Scott: We are getting just a touch hysterical. It was only two weeks ago that my learned friend had me on the late show at 10:30 p.m. because he was appalled that a judge in Brantford had made what he called a wrong decision. He was entitled to call a Brantford judge wrong, but he thinks it is reprehensible for me to say I believe the judge to be wrong in this case. It is quite acceptable and it is frequently done by the courts of appeal. There is nothing wrong with it.

If he wants the answer on the conduct of the crown attorney, it is fully provided in the editorial this morning in the Globe and Mail to which I refer him. It was a judgement call that was made. As the Globe and Mail said, it was not an incorrect judgement.

Mr. Gillies: I should hardly need to quote from the Young Offenders Act to the Attorney General, but I will: "After attaining the age of 14 years, a youth court may, on application of the young person or his counsel, or the Attorney General or his agent, move the proceedings to an ordinary court."

Will the Attorney General admit now that the fault in this case was not so much with the judgement or with the judge, but with his failure and that of his agent, the crown attorney, to move the case into an adult court?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As I said yesterday and as my friend would know if he read the statute, no one has a right, least of all me, to move it into an adult court. I cannot do that. What one can ask the judge to do --

Mr. Timbrell: The minister can ask.

10:20 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member should cool his heels a little bit while I give the answer.

One can ask the judge to conduct a transfer hearing. The judgement in this case, which almost everybody agrees was the right judgement, was that because the boy was just 14 and the evidence pointed overwhelming to his insanity, a transfer order would not have been made. As my friend will know, if the boy was under 14 the case could not have been transferred. In other words, if this case had occurred some weeks earlier it would have been compulsorily tried in the family court. The reality is that there is this flaw, among others, in the legislation. It should be remedied by permitting an appeal in important cases of this type.

SEVERANCE PAY

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Last week the Premier (Mr. Peterson) admitted that there were abuses of severance pay legislation and indicated that the Ministry of Labour was going to develop specific remedies. Can the minister explain what remedies he has in mind to deal with the inadequacies in severance pay legislation?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: If the honourable member will remember back to the first debate in 1981, he will know that a number of remedies are available to us. The size of the firm, which is now set at 50 with a possible reduction from 50, is one possible remedy to add to the number of workers gaining severance pay, as is the minimum threshold level of five years.

In addition, there are a number of other remedies. The definition of "establishment," which is a key issue in the current dispute with Dominion Stores, is another possible remedy. There are a number of remedies, and we are actively reviewing them.

I remain hopeful that, whatever changes we make, those very positive changes, which I am sure my honourable friend agrees would be positive, will not be completely negated by the ill-considered decision of the federal government to deduct severance dollar for dollar with regard to unemployment insurance.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister must be aware -- at least I know he was when he was in opposition -- that very few workers in Ontario actually receive severance pay. The latest figures from his ministry indicate that less than one per cent of the workers who are laid off in Ontario actually receive severance pay.

Is the minister prepared to change the law, and when, so that every worker who is permanently laid off will receive severance pay in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member raises a good point. This is the object of the review that is going on. We are looking at one possibility. For example, as the member will know, partial closures and full closures are the only matters that are now caught by the act. We are also looking at the possibility of recognizing entitlement in the area of reduced operations.

I do not expect the review to be complete in the next few days. I hope it will be complete so that we may see some legislation in the next session.

Mr. Gillies: In reviewing this legislation, will the minister look at two provisions that are troublesome: one being the size of the layoff, the 50-person-plus clause, and the other being the definition of "temporary layoff"?

The minister will know that there are Massey-Ferguson workers in Brantford who have now been on temporary layoff for four years. Will he undertake to close those two loopholes when he does his review?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I can tell my friend that I will look at the numbers, the threshold level of 50. I remind my him that when he and I were here in our first term, we moved an amendment to reduce the number from 50 to 20, and it seems to me that the majority party of the day voted against that amendment. I do not know whether the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) was one of them that night; however, we will be reviewing that.

I might say in passing that, as time goes on, we are finding we need to review very extensively the entire Employment Standards Act, which the previous government appears to have forgotten existed with regard to significant amendments after 1975.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister is quoted in this morning's paper as indicating that Black owes his workers an apology. The minister will know that an apology from Conrad Black does not resolve the problem of Black ripping off the pension fund and denying severance pay to the Dominion workers.

Will the minister assure us that in the meeting he reportedly has this coming Monday with the workers he will guarantee that the Dominion Stores workers will receive severance pay and that the sick and slanderous remarks of the likes of a Conrad Black will not be tolerated in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: No, I cannot guarantee that there will be severance pay. The matter is going to a referee, Professor Brown from the University of Windsor, later this month, as I am sure the member knows.

In response to reporters' questions, I have indicated my concern about the remarks of Mr. Black which I consider to be highly inappropriate and to have attacked "all workers in that company" in a very unfair way. Obviously, I will hear from the Dominion Stores workers. While we can have a dispute on severance pay, I remain hopeful that Mr. Black will come forward and indicate his remarks were as inappropriate as all members think they were.

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. Yesterday we were treated to comments from the leader of the official opposition to the effect that talking about the quality of the St. Clair River maligns the town of Sarnia and is merely an attempt to curry favour with Toronto yuppies. I want to assure the Minister of Natural Resources that we in this party believe issues around the St. Clair River to be very serious and one of the most serious is the question of sports fishing.

The minister will know that last December his ministry paid more than $600,000 to buy out the last commercial fishing licences in Lake St. Clair. Can the minister tell us why the public is paying that compensation and why no attempt is being made to have known polluters and violators of this province's environmental laws contribute to the cause?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The situation, as it exists on behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources, has nothing to do with the pollution aspect. We are taking the gill-setters out of the St. Clair River because there was too much pressure put on the fishery. The buyout, which the member has described as in the $600,000 to $700,000 range, is to reduce the pressure on the fish that are there to be taken. We are doing that right across Ontario. We are doing everything we can to give everyone the assurance there will be enough harvest for sports fishermen and to keep a viable commercial fishery going.

There are places where the pressure is so great we have had to take the initiative, but I do not think it addresses the situation as it relates to the pollution of the St. Clair River; that responsibility rests with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and he is doing an excellent job. I support him in his initiatives.

Mrs. Grier: I find that a little difficult to accept, given that the beginning of the ban on fishing for pickerel in Lake St. Clair was in 1970 when mercury was discovered in the lake. The buyout that occurred last December was merely a completion of that process.

Given that we know the pollution in pickerel and other fish was part of the reason for the ban on commercial fishing, what does the minister intend to do to protect the sports fishermen?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I have to correct the honourable member. The buyout had nothing to do with the pollution aspect. It was because of the pressures on the fishery. What has been done is to provide a guide for the safe consumption of pickerel or any other kind of fish we have in Ontario. We are providing the kind of information necessary to the sports fishing public to be able to address itself to the safety of eating the fish, but the question should not be put to the Minister of Natural Resources because the buyout was not due to any pollution of the waters.

Mr. Pope: I know the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) will be interested in the comments of the Minister of Natural Resources that he is buying out gill fishermen all across the province.

Will the minister confirm that, in spite of the efforts of the third party, sports fishing in the Sarnia-Lake St. Clair area is growing in popularity and usage of the resource and that is why he is buying out the commercial fishermen?

10:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes, it is increasing; that is one of the reasons there was too much pressure. If I gave an indication that we were buying out across Ontario, that is not what I meant. I meant the policy is across the province. Wherever this heavy pressure has to be relieved it is going to be done in the best possible way. What we are talking about in some areas is trap-netting; we catch the fish live so the incidental catch does not impact on us attempting to manage the industry.

It is going very well. It is in good hands. Whenever I can get good water anywhere I will stock, particularly when I get the money from the fishing licences.

Mrs. Grier: Does the minister get a chance to change his answer to my second question in view of the crib sheets he has just received from the Minister of the Environment, or do I have to place my third question?

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mrs. Grier: Let me say to the minister --

Mr. Speaker: By way of question.

Mrs. Grier: By way of question, let me say to the Minister of Natural Resources that I am posing my questions to him today for a very deliberate reason. It is because I would like to ask him to reconcile what appears to me to be a very direct conflict of interest.

Will he not agree that on the one hand, his ministry gains substantial revenue from sports fishing all across this province, and that on the other hand, he is charged with the responsibility of advising the public when its health may be put at risk as a result of pollutants found in fish? Is this not a conflict?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, I do not believe it is a conflict at all. We have to face the realities and the impact on the fish in relation to the pollutants. It is considerably different from place to place. It is very different within species. There are fatty fish that are more likely to take on environmental poisons, or however one wants to describe them, that would cause us to be most careful with them.

That is why we provide this guide. It is very important to the sports fishermen. I am sure that as the environment is cleaned up the member is going to see us keeping pace with the taking of the fish, doing the research and all the things that are going to keep people very much aware of how they can use the fish that are caught in our waters.

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

Ms. Fish: I have a question for the Minister of Health regarding procedures that have been put in place for therapeutic abortions at Windsor Western Hospital Centre.

The minister will be aware that the hospital imposes a quota of a maximum of six therapeutic abortions a week, notwithstanding the question of the finding of a doctor that there is a need for an abortion and that failure to have an abortion might otherwise imperil the life and health of the woman. Referrals now will be accepted only from doctors who are active staff members of the hospital, thereby cutting off access for approximately 50 per cent of the women in Windsor and Essex county.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Ms. Fish: Finally, that hospital --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Ms. Fish: It is coming, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of putting some of the facts before the minister for the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am just asking ask the member to please place the question.

Ms. Fish: I will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker. The final point I believe the minister would wish to have in front of him is that the hospital now has required that referrals come from two staff members to the therapeutic abortion committee, rather than the requirement of the Criminal Code of one.

My question in the light of the foregoing is, what has the minister's government, and the minister in particular, done to afford proper health care accessibility for the women of Windsor and Essex?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am aware there are concerns at the Windsor Western Hospital Centre. I know that when we were there not long ago for a very successful convention, just prior to our convention some picketing had been going on outside the hospital.

We have had discussions over the past several months about accessibility and what procedures are put in place by boards. As the honourable member knows, we are not in a position to direct or dictate with respect to how a hospital carries out that function. I will personally be talking to Mr. Broderick, the administrator there, to see exactly why these situations have arisen and what has prompted him to move in this direction.

Ms. Fish: My supplementary question arises from the minister's indication that he feels he is not in a position to direct. I suggest the minister was prepared to step in and direct in London. In further stepping in to direct, will he deal with the terribly serious allegations from Earl Amyotte, the president of the Local Campaign Life organization, who alleges that he has access to confidential health records of the therapeutic abortion committee, of the doctors at the hospital, of the women seeking abortions at Windsor Western Hospital Centre and of those for whom abortion procedures have been performed?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It concerns me a great deal that a person who I presume is a layperson would have access to that information. I will look into that matter very seriously and I promise a report to this House as to how that material became available to people who, from my understanding, have no particular ability to receive it. I will make a full report on that, because when there are questions of confidentiality of medical information it affects all of us extremely seriously. I will deal in very short order with that matter.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Is the minister aware of the history behind this, number one being that in a rationalization program between Hotel Dieu of St. Joseph Hospital and Grace Hospital in Windsor a few years ago, in which the Ministry of Health was involved, the other hospital that performed therapeutic abortions agreed to no longer perform them, so the major hospital that provides accessibility is Windsor Western?

Behind this whole issue is the fund-raising for the chronic care hospital. The Right to Life group in Windsor has said it will boycott the fundraising for the chronic care hospital because therapeutic abortions are carried out at Windsor Western.

Will the minister not understand that, no matter what our personal feelings are on the whole issue of abortion, there is a Criminal Code which provides for therapeutic abortions under certain circumstances and it is his responsibility to see that accessibility is provided?

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to the suggestions from the honourable member about the history and its function in the role of planning for hospitals in Windsor, I think all of us acknowledge it has been a complex and complicated matter.

I have to express in public my regret at any person or any group of people taking action that will deprive the community of resources which would enable it to perform or supply services, particularly for chronic care purposes in Windsor, where we know there has historically been a grave deficiency. All of us would hope that any group would not actively go around trying to boycott a fund-raising opportunity.

I again undertake to report to the House very quickly on the confidentiality matter.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to a question asked previously.

Mr. Speaker: I will take a question from the member for Nickel Belt and then I will recognize the response to the question asked previously.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you for that very fine judgement call.

SPRAY PROGRAM

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources, who I am sure will recall that in the brochure distributed at the open houses on forestry spraying there is a quote on page 15, if the minister wants to turn to it.

It states, "All reports so far have shown that" -- then it lists a couple of chemicals -- "insecticides used do not pose a significant threat to the environment, and should valid studies ever show differently, spraying of that insecticide would be immediately discontinued."

Given that promise -- which is a lie in itself, because there have been valid studies showing it is not safe -- and since the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that people living in or near areas of chemical spraying suffered from higher than normal levels of nervous disorders and a low white blood cell count, would the minister put an end to the sham of public consultation on spraying and announce that there will be no chemical spraying in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: There is no sham to the open houses and the public becoming involved in helping to make this decision.

As I have told the critic for the New Democratic Party and the critic for the official opposition, the open houses are to give the public the kind of information required. The member knows full well a determination has not been made. What we are going to do will come forward from cabinet in about three weeks.

10:40 a.m.

We are being very open and accepting all of the information that is coming forward. I would encourage all of the members of the Legislature to participate. We have not made a decision. What we have before us is a request by my staff to have a mix of biological chemicals and some other types of chemicals. I want to make it clear that nothing has been ordered. We are going to do the right thing. The object, of course, is to prevent tremendous infestation. We are asking for chemicals that are used every day in spraying farm products. Every apple we eat may have been sprayed 10 or 15 times with the same kinds of chemicals and they are accepted as safe by the federal government or the government of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the question has been answered.

Mr. Laughren: Surely the minister knows there are a large number of valid studies that I could put to him to show there are dangers from chemicals. If the minister is taking this all so seriously, if he is truly anguishing over whether or not to spray with chemicals, could he please tell me why he set aside three months of consultation with the public on the whole question of fishing licences and only two weeks to deal with the spraying issue?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: One can fish all season but we have a very short time to spray. It really is elementary. We have to spray from mid-May on. We have to work backwards to do the open houses, to get the spray, to get the aircraft lined up, to get the air strips lined up. We have done it in a very responsible way and that is the reason it is structured in that fashion.

Mr. Pope: The minister has already ordered the chemicals to spray in order to do it in the time needed to do it. That is the fact of the matter.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Excuse me, that is not true.

Mr. Pope: Excuse me, it is. The fact of the matter is that the previous government only sprayed bacillus thuringiensis last year, making that decision as a result of the open houses across the province. How can he say they have not made a decision, he is awaiting public consultation, when he told the House three weeks ago there was to be 30 per cent chemical spray this year?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That comment is not appropriate nor proper. The sprays have not been ordered. The open houses -- all of the information now is being brought together. There has been no determination made.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes, he is absolutely wrong.

Mr. Timbrell: You are wrong.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, I was not wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a question and answer period, not a discussion period.

The Premier has a response to a question previously asked.

CONTRACT WORKERS

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Yesterday I was asked a question by the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) with respect to the question of the food and service workers maintaining their employment at First Canadian Place owned by Olympia and York. He will recall that yesterday I met with representatives of the union. We sat down and chatted. I was asked in the House yesterday what I would do about it and I discussed two aspects of it; the legislation the member would like changed and, an important part to me, protecting the jobs of those roughly 250 people who work there.

This morning I had a meeting with representatives of Olympia and York and we came to the agreement that Olympia and York would write to each of the potential contractors, specifying that as an additional term of tender, the contractor must offer first right of refusal on the job to current employees to the extent needed to perform the services. What that says is that I believe the vast majority of those jobs will be protected.

Mr. McClellan: We have one more cap-in-hand approach by the government to an employer.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Do you want me to stop?

Mr. McClellan: I want the legislation changed so this never happens again. However, I want to ask this morning if the Premier can tell us whether the jobs which will be retained -- and the Premier said he could not guarantee all of them -- will be retained with or without loss or pay, with or without loss of seniority or with or without loss of benefit?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the honourable member is asking me whether the union will continue to exist, I have no guarantee of that. He wants me to change the legislation, and I understand that. However, I am more concerned about jobs than I am about protecting unions. We moved quickly and I believe we have protected the vast majority of those jobs. I am not in a position to tell him today the terms and conditions of that. The important thing was those roughly 250 women who worked there. We have been able to help them, and that is what I care about.

DOMED STADIUM

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Premier. Given that yesterday the standing committee on public accounts heard from all four bidders on the domed stadium, and three of the four bidders said the process had been unfair and they had been aggrieved by it; and given the fact that each of them indicated to the committee that he could retender without delaying the construction of the dome, does the Premier not think it is fair to the taxpayer of Ontario that he direct the Stadium Corp. of Ontario to allow them to do so?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sure the honourable member is not surprised that the three people who did not win that bid would consider the process or the tendering unfair. It is like his saying the last election was unfair. I do not expect he will ever believe it was fair. That is the reality of the situation.

I assume the member saw the correspondence, the terms and conditions under which those bids were made. They all agreed to the process. They were all quite happy about it, I am told, and were delighted to participate. I also read that some of them may not want to retender, because it is a very expensive process which takes a long time.

The simple answer to his question is no, we are not going to reopen that. If he has any concerns about it, I ask him to speak to William Grenville Davis, someone he respects a great deal I know, who, as vice-chairman of the dome corporation, agrees with our position.

If it is the member's position that he wants to delay this thing forever and wants nothing to happen, let him please stand up and say so. It was completely fair and completely aboveboard, and he has lots of friends on that board who are supervising the situation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will wait until you are finished.

Mr. Sterling: The Premier and the government should get the idea that although Mr. Davis was a member of this party and the past Premier, and still is a member of this party --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will wait again and try it again.

Mr. Sterling: As I say, Mr. Davis is no longer a member of this Legislative Assembly, and his responsibilities are much different today than they were when he was a member.

As a member of the Legislative Assembly, I am very concerned about this, because the Premier knows Ellis-Don was not the low bidder, by $8 million. The excuse for giving it to Ellis-Don was the fact that there were some minor shadows in the low bidder's concept.

We found out yesterday that the dome corporation has chosen Ellis-Don, which it now admits has more of the spectators in the shadows than any other proposal does. Who is the Premier for? Is he for the spectators or for the ball players?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Who are we for? Can we caucus this? We are for the spectators.

10:50 a.m.

Mr. Philip: I am sure the Premier would agree that the real shadows are the shadows in the Conservative Party who want to delay the opening of the dome.

Mr. Davis: Why do the members of that party not put on red ties and go and sit over there; it would make it much easier.

Mr. Timbrell: After all, what is $8 million among friends?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Philip: Would the Premier agree that one area that can be reopened which would save the taxpayers a considerable amount is the consortium? Is he aware that the chairman of the dome corporation held a press conference for Labatt's only this week without consulting Carling O'Keefe or Molson's? Would he use his influence on the dome corporation and its chairman to negotiate with those companies and any others and open up that consortium at a saving of $5 million per company for the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There are a number of questions there. The answer is, yes, we want to attract as much private money into the dome corporation as possible.

This thing still has a number of hurdles to get over before it is a fait accompli. It is my view that the entire process should be reviewed in public, as it has been. The members are privy to all the information. I reject the view we should go on tendering forever and just try to defer the proposition. The board that has been assembled is first class in every respect; the people have great judgement.

I reject the view the gentleman mentioned earlier is even a former Conservative. If his party continues to carry on the way it has from the legislative end, he may join the Liberal Party. We would take him. These people are embarrassing their previous leader.

Mr. Davis: We were never embarrassed by our previous leader; we are embarrassed only by our present Premier.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The other Bill Davis was quiet.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With respect to the money --

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: -- I understand Labatt's has pulled out of the consortium; it has left its $5 million on the table to make room for the other two breweries. I was not part of those discussions in the committee, but I understand the member heard the other breweries say they were interested and felt they were unfairly treated. Now they have an opportunity to participate in the consortium. I have no idea whether it was Labatt's obligation to tell those two breweries ahead of time what it was going to do. I am not sure of the niceties of the situation. Now they have an opportunity but I want more money, obviously.

[Later]

Mr. Callahan: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the questions by the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) might have cast some shadow on the judgement or integrity of the predecessor in my riding, the great riding of Brampton, I rise to put that on the record.

CONTRACT WORKERS

Mr. McClellan: I want to go back to the Premier on the question of the workers at First Canadian Place. Obviously, he does not understand there is no shortage of jobs for immigrant cleaners in this and many other cities as long as they are willing to work at the minimum wage. That has been the pattern of exploitation of immigrant cleaners for the last 15 years. Once again, another government, another Premier or minister has gone cap in hand to another employer to beg for jobs for immigrant women who have managed to fight for and win a union and decent wages. What protection will he offer them that their wages will not be knocked back down to minimum wage levels?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot guarantee what the wage level will be. My concern was to retain those jobs. I met with a number of those women yesterday. They were in my office. They were very much concerned about their jobs and understandably so. They have experience in that facility. I have extracted from Olympia and York the commitment to retain as many of those jobs as possible. I cannot tell the member what the terms and conditions will be nor when that will be done. I trust it will be done. I know the member's position on the matter and I know what he would like to do with changes in legislation. We are looking at it.

Mr. McClellan: It is the only solution.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is possibly one solution. It can create a number of ill effects I may not want to see. I am not giving him a guarantee I will change that legislation but I will look at it. We are reviewing it.

Mr. Mackenzie: Surely the Premier recognizes the fact that, after six years' service, many of these women -- and they are almost all women employees -- are up to the magnificent sum of $6.75 to $7.25 an hour. They are now faced with the possibility of the minimum wage once again and maybe none of the benefits they have.

In view of the decision that came down on the Brentwood Manor Nursing Home, which said the firms it hired to do the job for the fired workers were one and the same employer, does the Premier not see the merit in allowing the minimal gains those workers have made to go with them in this change to contracting out? Otherwise, he is missing the whole point. There are jobs at minimum wage in this province.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With great respect, the member and his colleague are getting a little alarmist about this. He is assuming they are going to go from the $6.75 level -- I believe that is correct -- to minimum wage. He cannot stand in this House and make that assumption.

I cannot tell the member what the wage levels will be. I cannot tell him how it will come out in the wash. The concern to me was those women's jobs, and they have been protected. We have done the best we can to help those people, at least in the short term. That is where this government has assumed its responsibilities.

FUTURES PROGRAM

M. Guindon: J'ai une question pour le ministre de la Formation professionelle. Le programme Futurs comprend trois éléments: l'embauche, les conseils et l'éducation. Le ministre veut-il expliquer, étant donné l'intention qu'a exprimée son gouvernement d'offrir des services gouvernementaux complets aux francophones, pourquoi les éléments de conseils et d'éducation ne sont pas offerts en français?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am sorry. I got the general thrust of the question, but if the honourable member can summarize it for me in English, because I did not have my earphones on, perhaps I can give him a better answer.

Mr. Guindon: The Futures program has three components: job placement, counselling and education. Given the government's express intention to provide complete government services for francophones, can the minister explain why there are no counselling or education components being offered in French?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not sure that is the case. The member is correct in that there are three components to the Futures program. It is my understanding that where programs are offered in communities such as Sudbury, there are provisions through the community college there, the youth employment counselling centre. If I am wrong, I will get the information from my friend and I will ensure that case will be turned around.

Mr. Guindon: The Futures program is a brand new initiative by the government. It could have built a French component into it right from the beginning. Given the recent government studies that indicate francophone young people have generally less education than their anglophone counterparts and therefore perhaps have the greatest need for these programs, why did the government not even attempt to make the programs more accessible to francophones?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend the member for Cornwall is absolutely wrong in that regard. In the design of the Futures program, we have tried to ensure that the program is accessible not only to Franco-Ontarians but also to native Ontarians and others in the north. We have been opening up youth employment counselling centres, and our network of community colleges in that area has been expanding its delivery system for Futures. I am confident that a comprehensive delivery program will be available in the French language.

Mr. McClellan: Can the minister, or perhaps a more senior spokesman of the government, tell me whether this assembly will be equipped for simultaneous translation when we come back for the second session of this Parliament in April, so that francophone members of the assembly will be able to ask questions in the official language and the rest of us will have the opportunity to understand what they are saying?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, that is not a supplementary. It is a good question and it is being looked at by the standing committee on members' services.

11 a.m.

RADIOACTIVE LEAK

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister is aware of the 500-gallon-per-day leak at the spent fuel storage bay at Douglas Point. That fuel bay contains 22,000 bundles of highly radioactive uranium fuel. It has been two weeks now and Ontario Hydro has been unable to find the leak. It is considering moving those 22,000 bundles of fuel.

Can the minister tell us what ramifications this situation has for Ontario Hydro's spent fuel storage program? Has Hydro given him any idea as to what caused this rather extensive leak?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The information I have is that any radiation from the leak is well within the limits of exposure. If it were to get to the proportion that would require moving the bundles and storing them somewhere else, that would be done. I have assurance from Ontario Hydro that subsequent storage bins have been built in such a way that any escape from the chamber could be kept in a circular arrangement and pumped back in so that it never escapes from the containment.

I have been assured by Ontario Hydro that it is well within the limits of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and the Atomic Energy Control Board. It is within the acceptable limits right now, but is being monitored closely.

Mr. Charlton: The minister seems to be focusing exclusively on concern about the amount of radioactivity in the water. That is not the concern I am expressing to him. The minister should be aware, as I raised with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) a couple of weeks, these fuel storage bays are supposed to be impregnable. They are supposed to be capable of containing that fuel virtually for ever. That was the way Hydro put it in the select committee on energy last fall.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Charlton: Now, as a result of events we cannot identify, we have a major leak. Will the minister direct Hydro to do a full inspection of all the fuel bays, report to him on their condition and then table that report in the House?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Of course I will ask Hydro, at the behest, of the member, to do that. I have to correct him on one statement he made that I do not think I can accept: that it is a major leak. Hydro has assured us it is not. Until there is reason to believe otherwise, I have to accept what Hydro has told us. I am prepared to go forward and get the information the member requires. I am very anxious and interested to know what is leaving the site and getting into the environment.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. Timbrell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I listened with interest to the response by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan). It really started yesterday in question period. My point of order is simply that in checking yesterday's Hansard, I can see no place where the Premier took the question as notice. What he contributed today should have been a statement by the minister. I ask you to add a couple of minutes to question period because that was taking advantage of the --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: How about 10 minutes?

Mr. Timbrell: Ten minutes is fine. Thank you very much; we will accept 10 minutes. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I ask that some time be added to question period.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a very good point of order. Everybody is in such a good mood this morning that I will add one minute for the answer to the question and one minute for the supplementary question. We will add two minutes to question period.

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Miss Stephenson: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I am sure the minister is aware that hemophilus influenza virus B is a very common virus infection at this time of year and is particularly common in children. He will also be aware that HIB is a relatively serious infection for children. Since there is no known specific antimicrobial or antibiotic for such infections, there has been a great deal of activity in the development of vaccines, and two very good capsular polysaccharide vaccines have been developed that now are available for such vaccination purposes.

Will the minister report to the House what his direction has been, through the division of public health in Ontario, to the physicians of this province to help them to deal appropriately with this very serious disease and what he is doing about the distribution of vaccine?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable member was able to place that question and indicate that the minister would know all about this. Of course, she was able to do this with a straight face, knowing full well I had not heard before half the words she used in the question.

I do know that I will be able to get in touch with the public health people to advise the House of what action has been taken on this. I am sorry I was not able to follow all the words she used. If she will send a copy of her question over, I will get specific answers, because I could not even spell half the words she was supplying to me.

I will report back to the House. The member probably knew full well that this Minister of Health had not heard all of those words before. I will follow up on it as diligently as I can. I will be in touch with our officials to see what help they have been able to provide to physicians.

Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, may I request from you information about whether the minister is taking it as notice at the moment?

Mr. Speaker: I understood that he would take it as notice.

Miss Stephenson: That is not what he said, but I just want to make sure of that so that when he does reply it will be a part of the response.

I would tell the minister that the words I used --

Mr. Speaker: By way of supplementary, I hope.

Miss Stephenson: Yes, as supplementary -- the words I used are very straightforward and very easily understood by all members of the health protection area in this province. The words "capsular polysaccharide vaccine" are relatively new, but the principles are old.

One of the things I want to impress upon the minister, by way of a question is, does he understand --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I added some time to the question period so more people could ask questions and get answers. I would appreciate it if you would really put the supplementary.

Miss Stephenson: Is the minister aware that HIB infection is a very serious infection for children between the ages of two and five, because a very considerable number of those children -- about one in 2,000 -- acquire a very serious infection, and one in 200 of those develop meningitis?

Meningitis was totally lethal before we had antibiotics, but it --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Place the supplementary question, please.

Miss Stephenson: What is the minister going to do about protecting children between the ages of two and five in this province this year -- because the peak period of this infection is February, March and April -- in order to ensure that we minimize the intelligence disturbance and the neurological disorder?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has asked the question.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I would like to put the member on notice that I will require her assistance in tutoring me with respect to some of the words. Her polyencapsulated questioning has provided me with some new areas of endeavour to study exactly what is being done.

I have undertaken to the House to report on what is a very serious question. I want to underline the fact that I am extremely concerned about the question of the people who may be --

[Laughter]

Hon. Mr. Elston: Sorry. I have been distracted by the laughter on the other side of the House. I am concerned about the health of people between two and five. In my home town, a very good friend of ours had a child who did develop meningitis from infections similar to this. I do not know that it was the same one.

I will advise this House of what advice has been given by my public health officials. I will refer it back to the House and, in all seriousness, advise the people here of exactly what steps have been taken.

Miss Stephenson: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am delighted to offer my services to vaccinate the minister with the kind of knowledge that will be of assistance to him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That could be a very serious point.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The minister wants to advise the House that it might take place under the guise of a full moon but at no other time.

11:10 a.m.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Philip: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Tomorrow, February 8, commemorates the day on which two leaders of the Iranian people, Moussa Khiabani and Ashraf Rajavi, were murdered by the Khomaini régime in Iran. Since June 20, 1981, more than 50,000 dissidents have been executed while 140,000 people have been subjected to the torture of Iranian prisons. Members of all three parties in this Legislature have signed a statement condemning the violation of human rights and the abuses of fundamental freedoms in Iran as outlined in the 1985 annual report of Amnesty International.

The standing committee on the Ombudsman presented a report to the House that passed unanimously. This report suggests processes whereby this Parliament can deal with abuses such as those in Iran. Since it has not yet been dealt with, I thought it appropriate that some mention of the Iranian situation be made today in this House to complement resolutions which are being passed in parliaments throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind all members that there is a report before the House and there may be time on future occasions for members to make statements for a 90-second period. However, the member has his comments on record.

PETITION

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council signed by 153 constituents in the riding of Burlington South wishing to petition the Ontario government against any change to the Retail Business Holidays Act which would allow shopping at any Ontario retail store on Sundays.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

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

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the francophone affairs program be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Francophone affairs program, $2,067,100.

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that notwithstanding any previous order, the House meet in the chamber at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, February 12, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that notwithstanding standing order 64(a), private members' public business not be taken up on Thursday, February 13, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

TRANSFERRAL OF BILL 71

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Bill 71, An Act to protect the Public Health and Comfort and the Environment by Prohibiting and Controlling Smoking in Public Places, be transferred from the standing committee on social development to the standing committee on general government for disposal.

Motion agreed to.

REFERRAL OF RESOLUTION

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that pursuant to the resolution passed by the House on motion by Mr. Davis on Thursday, January 16, 1986, the subject matter of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 464, be referred to the standing committee on general government for review and report.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Brandt moved, seconded by Mr. Timbrell, first reading of Bill 104, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Brandt: Essentially the act calls for a requirement on the part of the municipality to pay for a judicial recount if the number of votes received by a municipal candidate is 500 or more but if the difference in the vote between two candidates is one per cent or less.

In the case of an election in which the winning candidate receives fewer than 500 votes, the requirement is that if the difference in the numbers of votes is five or less, again a recount is required. This takes into account both circumstances for a small municipality with a limited number of votes, and also for a larger municipality.

The purpose of introducing this kind of bill is to take the onus off a municipal candidate who in many instances has expended a great deal of money to run in an election only to find that the margin is an extremely narrow one, and then be faced with a requirement to expend substantial sums of money to determine the official outcome of the election. This would require the municipality to undertake that particular responsibility.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have tabled the answers to questions 196, 197 and 198 standing in Orders and Notices [see appendix, page 3930].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. Chairman: If my memory is correct, when we left off last night the minister was going to give replies and provide certain documents to the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) and the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce). Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Yes. The member for Kenora asked a question about new programs and initiatives introduced by this government. I am surprised he would ask that because, as he will recall, the Premier's office released a document just before Christmas called A New Direction, an analysis of Liberal government achievements. This was to be the member's holiday reading. I guess he did not have time to read it. I will send a copy over to him now with the initiatives affecting the north highlighted.

In response to the member for Kenora's question about the northern health transportation grant, the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) will continue to review the application of the program. I will refer the hardship cases to the Ministry of Health and I will personally discuss this with the minister.

11:20 a.m.

There was a question by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) about the Cargill phosphate deposit. He raised the possibility of using this resource to make fertilizer in northern Ontario.

I support the development of this valuable resource. My ministry is prepared to assist in whatever way it can. High transportation costs and depressed prices have not been favourable. However, the recently announced provincial program to reduce sulphur emissions may improve the prospect for development of this deposit. When I was in Ottawa this week I met with the consulting firm and we are looking at some propositions from it. I told its representatives to bring them to my deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister for mining, and then we will look into what they have in mind.

In answer to the member for Sudbury East about the Sudbury cancer facility, it is the Ministry of Health that can commit to construction, expected to begin in 1986-87, with the understanding that the cancer facility will have adequate funding, and we fully expect this project will go ahead as planned. Again, I told the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) my ministry will be monitoring this facility to make sure it is on time and in line with what we are led to believe.

With respect to the cancer facility's share, we are told it is there; if it is not, that is another ball game the Minister of Health and I will have to look into.

In response to the member for Rainy River, and we were discussing the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology programming, I agree there is a lack of non-resource-based manufacturing industry in northern Ontario. I always knew there was a very small secondary sector in the north, but I was surprised to discover when I became Minister of Northern Development and Mines that there are only seven non-resource-based manufacturing firms which have over 200 employees.

I can assure the member for Rainy River that I will be working closely with my cabinet colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) to strengthen this sector of the north's economy. As members know, the minister is a member of the cabinet committee on northern development and has a strong commitment to strengthen his ministry's programs in northern Ontario.

There was another question from the member for Rainy River about houseboats. My ministry, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation all recognize problems caused by the uncontrolled proliferation of houseboats on certain lakes. Houseboats are not licensed but compete in the same tourist market as land-based tourist operations requiring land-use permits issued on the basis of lake-fishing demography.

We agree means must be found to alleviate the stress on fishing caused by the houseboats. Houseboating is an increasingly popular tourist activity and a reasonable balance must be struck. Along with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, we are examining the issue.

In response to another question from the member for Rainy River, I too am concerned about the effects of transportation costs on northern industry. In my travels across northern Ontario this issue, along with Hydro rates, is the one most frequently raised by northern Ontario industry. We are dealing with this important issue in a number of ways.

As outlined in my estimates speech, I have begun, in co-operation with the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, a comprehensive review of the operation and mandate of ONTC. This review includes a look at ONTC rail and the highway freight rate structure. We will be doing what we can through ONTC to deal with this complex freight rate issue.

I know ONTC does not cover the northwest, but in some areas of the northwest there is quite a bit more competition in hauling freight than in the northeast. However, I recognize that Rainy River is on a highway that probably is in the same situation as Highway 11 in my area. The province will have to look at the situation. There are rumours about the feds introducing new regulations, and probably the province will have to follow those regulations. I do not know whether that will be a solution, but it was mentioned a few months ago and we will have to look into it. If the feds go along with all those regulations among the provinces, Ontario will have to look at it too because it will be part of a global transportation solution by the feds and we will have to abide by that law.

I notice that the transportation regulation started with the previous government in about 1974. Before that, Mr. Davis had tried a scheme to help transportation in the north that did not work. It was not the fault of the then Premier, but the result was that the grants that were given to the transport companies did not flow through to the taxpayers or the consumers.

There were discussions from 1975 to the year I left politics. We met here with Mr. Snow and came very close to passing a regulation law. There was pressure on all sides, my side, the New Democratic Party, the Conservatives and the Ontario Trucking Association. There was a lot of pressure on the three parties and the proposal was delayed and restudied. I will look into it and try to see which way to go and make a proposal in due time.

With the present discussion on freight rates and regulations, we have two Ministry of Transportation and Communications transportation consultants in place, in the northeast and the northwest, working directly with northern industry to assist in selecting the most effective mode and to negotiate the best freight rate deal. Industry is often able to realize major savings in transportation costs with the help of these consultants. This is a very effective program and I strongly support its continuation.

In addition, my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) is arranging measures to ease entry and increase competition in the trucking industry. We note a major commitment to highway construction, resources access roads and airports. All these measures will contribute significantly to achieving lower transportation costs in the north. As a result of our work, we hope to bring positive change in the future.

I will ask my ministry to monitor the cost of living in the far north and to check prices in the stores to see the difference between places with airports and those with no airports. Lately, I have been led to believe there is probably no difference. If there is no difference, that creates a problem. Those airports were built for safety in the case of fire or health reasons, but another reason was to reduce the cost of food to the consumer. Apparently, that may not be happening and we will have to check on it.

There was another question from the member for Rainy River about the northern helicopter pad construction program. Thirty-two helipads have been constructed to date and another 10 or so are expected to be built next year. The Kenora helipad is nearing completion. It will have a helicopter station and pad. This will significantly improve service in the Kenora and Lake of the Woods area.

11:30 a.m.

The Minister of Health is now developing an inventory for helicopter landing sites in the Kenora and Rainy River area. More helipads will be built in response to applications from local hospitals.

There was also a question from the member for Rainy River about hydro rates in Ontario being a disincentive to economic development. As he knows, and I spoke of it last night, Ontario is faced with stiff competition from Manitoba and Quebec on hydro rates. This government knows the importance of the cost of energy to industry. I believe the rate charges can be used as a tool to assist and stimulate economic development. This is the route I am trying to take with my ministry. We have been engaged in discussions with Hydro for three months to four months. We are meeting the new president at noon. After that, Hydro representatives will meet with my deputy minister and other people from my ministry who will state what we have in mind.

I will repeat what I said last night. I believe Hydro should be part of the development tool in northern Ontario. I recently discussed this with Tom Campbell, as I said, chairman of Ontario Hydro. He said he recognized that Ontario Hydro must assume a much stronger role in this area.

As well as talking to Hydro, I would like to remind my friend we are looking at new ways of electrification of our northern communities on the reserves in the north. The study with the Nishnawbe-Aski nation has been in progress since two or three weeks ago. The government is committed to do whatever is possible to assist the development of Ontario industry.

Mr. Bernier: Perhaps I can continue the discussion and point out to the minister that there are still a number of questions from my opening remarks that have not been answered by him.

I will put that aside for a moment and go to another issue. Before going to that, I was surprised to hear the minister stand up in his place and say he was shocked and surprised that I was not aware of the programs his government had brought forward. I remind him that last night, when I repeated his comments in the Legislature, he stood there in his place and could not find or even repeat to me what the programs were. He did not know himself.

I do not think it is correct for him to stand up and condemn me for not seeing and knowing what is in this document that is really a rehash of the question period. That is all it is. There are 48 pages of gobbledegook covering everything from government purchases of South African wine, AIDS initiative and the Toronto beaches cleanup to the Morgentaler court case. It is a whole list of questions and nonsense that was asked in the question period over the last two or three months.

There have been some markings related to achievements sent over to me on a copy of the Fahlgren report. That has been going on for seven or eight years, so it came to a conclusion it was going to come anyway.

I would say that the Ontario native economic support program for $3 million is one we could look at. The forest resources audit is going ahead. I do not know what the Metropolitan Toronto phone crisis line is. As for the French River Provincial Park, the ministry is renaming it here as a program. I do not think that is a program; really, that is not correct.

With respect to the countdown for acid rain. We know what that issue is. Then there are firefighting improvements. In the case of the Sudbury pilot project, 50 per cent paid for by the federal government. Then there is Science North. Those things were all in the works; they are not new programs.

I think the minister should watch what he is saying, because he is raising false hopes. He uses those words and tosses them around as if there are all kinds of new ideas and programs coming out of the government and they are not there. They are not in this document. If the minister has another list, I would appreciate him sending it over because I would be glad to see it.

I want to touch on the Ontario Northland Railway. First, I want to put into the record a letter my colleague the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague) left with me. It is a copy of a letter directed to the minister on February 3, 1986:

"I am writing this as a follow-up to my November 29, 1985 letter in which I asked if there are any statistics about ridership and traffic for the Chi-Cheemaun ferry's 1985 season. Not having heard back, I am concerned that perhaps my November 29 letter did not arrive at your office. I am interested in knowing whether there is a need for another Chi-Cheemaun to be built. If there is no need for another ferry between Tobermory and South Baymouth, is there any need for another ferry elsewhere in the province? Any information your office can provide with respect to the above would be greatly appreciated."

That was from the Collingwood Enterprise Bulletin, signed by George Czerny, the publisher. He has not had the courtesy of a reply to two letters. I have put the letter on the record and I hope the minister's staff will see a reply is sent to him.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: The member should know how it works. He was there for seven years.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The minister will get the opportunity to reply.

Mr. Bernier: This letter was dated November 29. It has been two and a half months.

I have another comment from a northern Ontario paper in which the minister was interviewed. It says: "In an interview on Monday, the rookie minister hinted he would like to put it" -- that is the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission -- "in the hands of someone who knows transportation from the bottom up."

Is there a purge going on? Does the minister intend to change members of the commission? Does he intend to get rid of Wilf Spooner and that very competent board of directors of the ONTC? Perhaps he could respond to that at the appropriate time.

I want to touch on the ONTC and where it is going. I have been reading some very interesting comments. When this administration stepped down, the minister was very much aware of the $50-million or $60-million initiative we had initiated with respect to bilevel cars being purchased from the Urban Transportation Development Corp., the new GO Transit cars that were being completely outfitted at the North Bay shop. It employs about 800 to 850 people.

He is aware of the improvements to the Chi-Cheemaun ferry and the purchase of the two Dash-8 aircraft. He is also aware of that massive amount of money going into the ONTC for improvements to the transportation system which would make it one of the finest transportation systems on the North American continent.

We are concerned with the rumours we are hearing about the government divesting itself of the ONTC. We hear rumours it might want to sell off the communications aspect, which made $14 million profit last year. When that came up two or three years ago, an offer came from Northern Telecom for some $25 million. We had revenues of about $8 million to $9 million. We turned it down. I would like to hear from the minister what his thoughts are and what his government is planning with respect to the future of the ONTC. Is he going to spin it off, as the government plans to do with other crown corporations?

11:40 a.m.

Mr. Kruger has been delving into the ONTC operations very carefully. Where does the minister stand? At one time, he was part of the action group which the former member for Cochrane North chaired. He was quite vocal about the ONTC operations and keeping them in place and improved transportation throughout the northeast.

If the government were to divest itself of the ONTC, the minister is aware of what the consequences would be, since he remarked on it last night with respect to Cochrane Enterprises. He referred again this morning to the efforts to bring down the freight rates, but the reduction was not passed on to the consumers. He is very much aware of how the ONTC has been trying to improve transportation. From the thrust with which we left ONTC, at least it had some good direction. However, I am concerned with what I am hearing about the government divesting and selling off a portion or perhaps all of ONTC.

Also in his reply, perhaps the minister could explain to me what is going on with the workers at ONTC in employment security. I would like to know what is meant by supplemental layoff benefits on an indefinite basis in the event of a major layoff. I think this is a new thrust, but I would like some explanation about what they are doing and trying to do to make sure the jobs are secure. I think it is a very admirable task, but if the minister could give us some further explanation in this regard it would be very helpful.

In my opinion, ONTC has a great future. I want to compliment the general manager, Peter Dyment, who has done a magnificent job of bringing that organization up to 1985-86 standards. He and his staff have to be complimented, as do the members of the commission itself.

I would implore the minister not to be too hasty politically, not to conduct a purge as the government did with the Minaki board of directors and replace them with all his Liberal friends. There are good people there. I say that with a great deal of sincerity.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: There is a variety of Liberals coming out of the woodwork up there.

Mr. Bernier: There are not too many in the woodwork. There are not many up there. They are as scarce as hens' teeth. One has to pull them out of the woodwork. They will not come out.

Could the minister bring us up to date with respect to the log hauling committee? I think he is aware of the problems we have, particularly in the northwest and in some parts of northeastern Ontario. Major pulp and paper companies are moving large amounts of pulpwood on our major highways, loading them crosswise on the semitrailers, hauling anything from 23 to 27 cords and causing some fear among the travelling public, particularly since those loads are dumped on a pretty regular basis.

In my area just last week, in Kenora, a semi-truck was dumped over right downtown. Had a car been parked there or people been standing there, it would have killed them. I can relate a number of instances of travelling in my area when loads of pulpwood are lying beside the highways because of highway conditions, driving conditions or loads not being properly secured.

There is a committee established of which I am very much aware, chaired by the assistant deputy minister, Bill Lees, which has been trying to move ahead with the industry's co-operation. The efforts to date have been a small step forward. I think they are putting on double cables now. We established some check points. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications has put on stricter surveillance and more inspections. However, there is still a fear in the public's perception as those huge loads of pulpwood come down the highways. They are still concerned.

The time may come in the not-too-distant future when we have to change that loading arrangement and load the logs lengthwise rather than crosswise. It may well mean some legislation will have to come from this government to force the logging companies, who I know are objecting to it because by loading differently they will be moving a smaller amount of wood per load and that increases the costs.

I was interested to hear of the judgement that came down in a court case in Thunder Bay recently. Four truckers had appealed a decision of the court that they were responsible for their loads. The judge upheld that decision and the drivers of the vehicles, as he pointed out, are certainly responsible for securing their loads, which is another step towards ensuring that the loads on the trucks that move along our highways are well secured. I would like the minister comment on where that issue stands, because there is a lot of interest in it in my area.

I note that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) made some changes with respect to the mining tax. He went from the escalated tax to the flat tax, which may have been the right step to take; we will see in the future. I understand there have been discussions with the mining industry with regard to the processing allowance and there has been no resolution of that issue. There have been ongoing discussions about that issue and there is some nervousness in the mining industry about processing allowances. I hope that he will bring us up to date on where that issue stands so that we can deal with it in a positive and straightforward way.

Also in the minister's response -- and I will wind up here, in the mining section -- I wonder if he can tell us what role he and his ministry will play in the convention upcoming prospectors and developers convention. Last year, we had a booth with the Ministry of Natural Resources. Now that the member is Minister of Northern Development and Mines, I hope he will have a very high profile at that convention. I hope he will be the guest speaker and bring some words of wisdom to that very enlightened group of developers and prospectors who meet here on an annual basis.

With those questions, I go back to the minister and ask him for some good response.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I will start with the famous word of the "purge" of ONTC. It is funny. I looked at the list yesterday and there was no purge. The same people who were named by my predecessor the member for Kenora, are still there. One thing he did not do that he apparently promised was to put native people on that board. Instead of doing that he gave the mayor of Hearst the position, because the mayor of Hearst in the last election, as members know, was an organizer for Mr. Piché. They made a place for him. The only thing wrong was that he should have put native people in that place. The mayor of Hearst is a friend of mine, but he had other places he could have gone, like to the hospital. He is very good at the hospital, with old age or elderly problems.

They are all there. As members know, sometimes someone will leave a commission at the end of March and maybe will be replaced by somebody else, but there is no purge.

I have ordered a comprehensive study of ONTC with the help of management. What he said about somebody -- we are going to put that in the hands of people who know about transportation, I was talking -- it is my thinking that probably if we are going to move, or orient ONTC as a development tool, I think probably the chairman should be full-time; that is my own feeling.

That is what I would say. If I do that, I would like to have a chairman who knows transportation. That has nothing to do with Mr. Dyment. As the member says, Mr. Dyment is a very competent man. He is the manager, but I was talking about a full-time chairman.

11:50 a.m.

There are no plans to divest ourselves of any significant part of ONTC, including Northern Ontario Telephone. We looked into it and nothing is going to be done; but as for the Dash-8, as the member knows, there will be no flight of the Dash-8 for a while because one is being retrofitted and the other is in bad shape apparently. I did not get the final report on this, but I am having talks with several private companies, including Air-Dale who has come forward with interesting ideas.

When one looks at that, I think it could be for the benefit of the northwest, and of the northeast too. This is where we are. This co-operative study is done because we want to provide better service and try to keep the subsidy at a level that can be afforded.

I know what the member for Kenora said about the telephone company. I know there are profits and that is probably the reason we have not heard anything about selling it.

In regard to log hauling, as the members know, my background makes me well aware of the concern about log-hauling safety and the need to make improvements. A further study on an improved tie-down system is currently under way. A cost-sharing arrangement has been finalized with the Ontario forest industry and the Ontario manufacturing industry. I believe the contract was given to Forintek.

The member for Kenora said, and I have seen it myself, that there are more spills in the northwest than in the northeast. I do not know the reason. It is probably due to the way they are hauling. For the most part, in the northeast they haul tree lengths all the time. In the northwest, as the member for Kenora was saying, they are hauling crosswise. I think the whole problem is with the tie-down. If we cannot tie that down, we are in trouble and eventually the companies will have to look at other ways of hauling.

I discussed this with my friend the Minister for Transportation and Communications and Mr. Hobbs. Perhaps they will change to longer trailers to try to compensate, as they do in Quebec. If we ever have to move from crosswise to the other way, maybe it can be done with longer trailers or something such as that. I do not know, but I hope this study will be out soon to give us some new ideas.

On the mining tax, discussions are under way and the next meeting will be next week. We are having good input from the industry. As the members know, there are all kinds of articles about the new minister of mines in the newspapers. If you know Mr. James, Mr. Chairman, you know that he talks from the heart. He told me he never saw so much preparation in his life as with the government and mining. If one talks to the developers and the prospectors -- I was told in Timmins by McKinnon, Larch and all those people that they never had such a leader before.

For a while, the previous minister had this under his hat too, but I was told there were places where they never saw a minister for 15 or 20 years. I am not blaming the previous minister, but that is what I am told by people involved in the industry and people who are working for the government too.

We are making progress. As I told the members last night, we are going to discuss with the native people about input with respect to the Mining Act. From reading the Fahlgren report, I think we have to look at that seriously. The forest and mining activities go further in the northwest than in my area in the northeast. We have to have some guidelines before we get people all over the place and then have court actions. We are going to do it properly. The discussions with the native people are going very well and we are making progress.

On the processing allowance and the whole question of administration of the act, which has been a sore point with the industry, we hope to resolve the tax issue very soon. We are committed to putting a bill before the House to take effect in the coming tax year. We are committed, not only to the mining industry but also to the prospectors and developers, to an act that will not complicate their lives too much and will be simpler so that ordinary people can look for a mine or do staking.

At the same time, we are committed to try to encourage the mining industry to come to Ontario and try to find other mines or create other activities.

We know that the competition from Quebec, New Brunswick and other provinces is very severe. We are going to try in the middle of all this not to give all the money away. Look at Quebec's deficit. It is very high and ours is not too bad. We have to keep our dollar in mind.

Do not forget that we have the Ontario mineral exploration program, and OMEP is a very popular program. It was started by the previous government, but it was restricted. We are going to try to open up OMEP and change the rules of reporting to give a chance to small, junior mines so that, if they do not have the money at the first of the year, perhaps they will get their money later in the year and they will still qualify. We are looking at some new direction on this. My ministry is working on it with the industry to try to make OMEP more palatable to every industry and individual.

As was mentioned, at the Prospectors and Developers Association meeting we will have two major display areas as well as a suite in which to meet delegates. There will also be a tea for wives. As members know, my wife will be a guest speaker at this. She will not replace me, because I have already made about 10 or 15 speeches to the mining people, the investors and the prospectors. Maybe it is time they listened to my wife. The display that the provincial government presents will be even bigger and better than last year's.

On the letter regarding Chi-Cheemaun, we did reply late in January. It all answers Mr. Czerny's question. If not, I invite him to seek more data, which we will be pleased to provide to him.

Mr. Bernier: I would like to get a clarification on the Dash-8 accident in Sault Ste. Marie a week ago. My colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) asked for a full report. Am I right in assuming that this report is not available at this time?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: It is still in the hands of the federal investigator. He does not have a report yet. The only thing we know is that it is very badly damaged but is apparently repairable. It will take two or three months to repair.

Mr. Bernier: Three months?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Two or three months if de Havilland puts all its effort into it.

Mr. Bernier: I point out to the minister that I viewed the scene of the accident on Monday last when I came down to Toronto and I saw the aircraft sitting at the end of the runway. It was sad to see a $7- or $8-million brand-new aircraft sitting there. I am looking forward to the report of the investigators.

To get back to the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, I mentioned in my remarks earlier the improvements to the transportation system. Where do we stand with regard to the 12 or 13 bilevel cars that we were going to purchase from the Urban Transportation Development Corp.? It was going to be a piggyback on the Via Rail order, and I believe it was moving ahead. We did get the GO cars up to North Bay. Those are being refurbished, as I understand it, and will be used on the Polar Bear Express this summer, I hope. Is it the minister's intention to move ahead with bilevels, or does he intend to use those GO Transit cars on the Cochrane-Toronto run?

12 noon

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: On the bilevels, as the member knows, the bid apparently came out at $3.7 million and Via was expecting $2.5 million, so there is still nothing on this one. I was talking with Peter Dyment a week ago, as well as about a month before. We gave our proposal to Via on the bilevels. I think it was during the time of the member for Kenora. We did not receive anything on this. They went ahead and asked for a quotation from the UTDC and Bombardier, but we did not receive anything from them on whatever was proposed to them last winter.

I read that about a month ago. I think some changes had to be made to some cars, but the $3.7 million would not cover the cars today. The cost would be higher. Still, they did not even answer the member when he made his proposal. I told Mr. Dyment to try to meet with the people from Via to see what was going on. Then I read in the newspaper that they were still negotiating with Bombardier and the UTDC to bring the price down.

The repairs to the GO trains are going pretty well. There are some in Cochrane and North Bay. We will see what we are going to do in the next few weeks or month, if we cannot buy the other one. I told Mr. Dyment we will have to look at other kinds of trains because we cannot use the bilevels. Like the member for Kenora, I want the people of the north to have the best transportation, but I think that will be beyond our means.

I told Mr. Dyment that maybe we should start to negotiate with Via parallel to the bilevels. I think the service from Cochrane to Kapuskasing should be run by one operator, with the same suit and the same smile. Right now we are changing crews. My feeling is, when one takes the train, the schedule is arranged to save time down the line. If one looks into why they leave at 9:30 at night I am sure it is because of that. If we arrive somewhere at 10 in the morning, the shift has started.

There is no reason why we should leave at 9:30 at night. There is probably no reason why we should leave at six. We could leave at eight o'clock from the north. We have to cut the schedule down if we want to attract people to go by train to the north. With all the airplanes since the member for Kenora left the scene and moved to the other side, there is more competition in our area of Cochrane and they work both services. The train service and norOntair are taking a beating. Cochrane would disappear from there as norOntair. Kap is taking a beating and the train is taking a beating too. There is some service under $166 from Toronto to Kapuskasing or Cochrane.

Mr. Bernier: On that point, I know it is not my place to give the minister advice, but if he is losing ridership on the norOntair operation, when I had his responsibility I was beginning to lean on the marketing division of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. I do not know if he is satisfied with their marketing and advertising programs, but I think they have to be more aggressive, and I say that sincerely.

I do not think they can just advertise in North Bay. There is more to norOntair and to ONTC just in the North Bay basin. They have to be more aggressive; they have to be able to compete with the private sector. With a more aggressive marketing program they could do that, so I will leave that comment with the minister.

I want to relate to another subject. I note with interest the minister's comments with respect to the use of the air ambulance, particularly in relation to the movement of patients who come to Toronto on the air ambulance service and then have to find their own way back to their respective communities. The minister was a little upset about that and is doing everything in his power to make greater use of the air ambulance both ways.

I want to relate to the minister some problems we had when we were in his position. They were not with the air ambulance system. They were with the hospital administrators here in Toronto. Under the present plan, that air ambulance can move a patient from hospital to hospital. The attitude down here is the problem. If the administrators sent that patient back to the hospital in Kapuskasing or in Timmins, they would use the return flight. It is there, but it is the attitude of the people down here that is the problem. The minister should lean on those people because there is an excellent service available. There is a way of moving them back and forth, but it is hospital to hospital. They just have to be leaned on to use this service that is really excellent for all of us who live in northern Ontario.

I want to move now to some of the questions I asked previously. Perhaps we can go through them one by one. I asked the minister if he could provide me with some costs with respect to the two name changes that came to his ministry in the past eight months: first, the Ministry of Northern Affairs and Mines and then Northern Development and Mines. I would be interested to know -- I am sure the public would like to know -- what the costs were to change the signs, the stationery, the phone numbers and all the things that go with the changes the minister has incorporated. If he can give us some figures on that, it will be most helpful.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: The staff will look into that, and I will report to the honourable member. He must know. He changed signs too, from blue to yellow to red and to green. It is not the name change that --

Mr. Bernier: The colour always remained the same, but with the accord, the minister must have some difficulty between green and red. I do not know what colour he is using.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Green. That is a nice colour.

Mr. Bernier: Is he going to use the green? If I can go on to the next question that was not answered, I made reference to the accord the government has with the socialists. It refers to the establishment of an inquiry into gas price differentials between the north and the south. Can the minister bring us up to date on that part of the accord and where it lies? The minister will be very familiar with the fact that the price of gasoline is of very serious concern to all of us who live in northern Ontario.

In Red Lake, it is now more than 60 cents a litre. There is a major highway into Red Lake, and they are most upset with this high pricing, although I will admit the price is not that far off in and around Dryden and in other parts on the Trans-Canada Highway. It is 53 cents or 54 cents a litre. Still, there is a difference between the north and the south. I just wonder where that issue stands.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: It makes me laugh when the member discusses our accord with the socialists. When I look at the laws the previous government passed, a lot of them were socialist too.

In Ontario we are the people in the centre. This time the Liberals are in the centre, with my friends over here, and we are going to keep it. He should not worry.

I want to go back to the Isbister report. I recall that a few years ago, the previous government had a report on fuel. I do not know what it did with it. I was surprised. I was in politics at that time, as the mayor of Hearst. I received a copy, and there were some good recommendations in it, but they were never implemented.

There was a rumour that something would be done north of the French River, but there was a problem. Right now, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) has this study in his hand and it will be out shortly, maybe by the end of next week.

After that, my ministry will look into it and, with the help of the Ministry of Energy, we will have some public hearings in the north again. We want to report to the Treasurer before the next budget. We are looking at it seriously.

12:10 p.m.

As members know, in my area and in other remote areas, we are paying very high prices. There has been a problem for a long time. It was studied but there was no action taken except on our licences, then it went up a little under some budget a few years ago, but I do not think that is the solution. There is a problem in the north with the 18 regions where they pay more than other regions. It is a complex thing we have to look at.

North of the French River they will pay less taxes. It is a buffer zone. They tried that in Quebec then they had to put it 50 miles away. I think we will have to do something else and look at the reserves of the north, the real north, the other north and the south north. It is a different area. In Sault Ste. Marie they are paying a higher price for gas and fuel than in Blind River. Something is wrong. If you are on a big highway around Sault Ste. Marie, you should have about the same price as Dryden and I know that in Hudson and Sioux Lookout that is a problem. We are going to try to do something about it.

Mr. Bernier: If I may respond to the minister's comments, with respect to our own policies when we were in office, I would remind him we did not prostitute ourselves with the socialists to get into government and to do the things we wanted to do. I just want to remind the minister of that.

Mr. Davis: In bed together.

Mr. Bernier: In bed together and the minister will regret the day, as a free enterpriser, that he went to bed with those people. I want to be around when I hear the minister, who is a free enterpriser, believe me, he is a hard worker and he knows what it is to make a buck. He does not live off the public trough, I know that, and somewhere down the road he will want to shed that socialist cloak. He will want to get rid of it and do his own thing for northern Ontario, and I say that to the minister sincerely.

To touch on another issue that is very important to northern Ontario, the tourist industry. As we have heard on many occasions, this industry could be the number one industry in northern Ontario by the year 2000. I admit I get a little nervous. I am disappointed that the budget of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation has been reduced by eight per cent. I think some money was put back in to bring the reduction down to four per cent, but there is a reduction in that budget.

The Ministry of Northern Affairs was actively involved in supporting tourism right across northern Ontario. We attended the sports shows in Toronto. We had staff and people in other major sports shows. I was disappointed that the minister did not see fit to go to one of those major shows in Minneapolis or Milwaukee or Chicago to be with the hundreds of tourist operators and to give them moral support. If they gave new direction or new ideas, then I think it is incumbent upon him to tell those operators and what better place to do it than at one of the major sports shows.

It is the lack of commitment by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) to the tourist industry that really concerns me. There seems to be a change of heart, a change of direction. I would hope there is not a change of direction by this ministry because I think there is a sensitivity, a concern and a feel for tourism in northern Ontario.

However, a tourism seminar has been hoisted or wiped out, and it was to have been a major thrust by the ministry to bring together a new tourist strategy because we are seeing a decline in the number of entries into Canada at border-crossing points. Those figures are going down every year. We have to make some changes. We have to get new direction. We have to have a new strategy.

I propose that we have a major tourism conference or seminar somewhere in northern Ontario to bring together all of those people on which the tourist industry impinges, be they tour operators, hotel operators, but not just tourist operators per se. Filling station operators, garage operators, anybody who is affected in some way by tourism should have been at that conference and given of their experiences and advice. That conference would have plugged into a similar national one Tom McMillan, the Minister of Tourism, had put together on a national basis. The scheme was very apropos. We had taken it from a low regional area of this province, put together a strategy and then plugged into the national strategy.

It certainly made sense. For that reason alone I was very disappointed the minister saw fit to cancel this seminar. The tourist industry was aware and excited about it. If memory serves me correctly, a steering committee was established to put the package together. Consultants had been engaged and it was moving ahead quite rapidly.

Does the minister have new ideas or is he going to support his colleague the Minister of Tourism and Recreation? Does he have specific figures and facts and some dollar amounts we can look at to make sure industry is protected and improved upon with the resources we have in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Over the last three months, I have made three trips to the north with my friend the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I never heard that money for northern Ontario will be cut. What I heard from him is that we are going to engage ourselves in new year-round activities in northern Ontario, not only sports shows but other attractions that will bring in people. From now on, tourism will be not only for people who fish or hunt. It will be a family affair in northern Ontario and we need new reflections.

It is one thing the member should have been looking at over the past 10 years. His party was looking at James Bay. We go up there and still do not see James Bay. We went to see the history of Moosonee and Moose Factory. We went there and got no history of Moose Factory. Not too far from there, people went to see whales. They even have a polar bear in Moosonee, called the Polar Bear Express.

We are looking in new directions and at Moosonee, Moose Factory and Port Albany we are going to put big money into trying to develop attractions so people who visit will be able to say, "At least I saw James Bay." That is our commitment and there is a share of that $200 million for tourism.

As to the member's friends who applied lately, they got their money. It will give new direction not only to people who want to go there but also people who want to promote in Quebec and the United States.

Second, we are going to have seminars starting soon in all of northern Ontario to get some of the feedback about which the member was talking. I could not sell this thing because I had just arrived here and we had to review everything at that time. I want to reiterate to my friend the member for Kenora that we are going to organize a big seminar in the near future.

As he knows, in all my speeches I write, I take tourism very seriously. I am building the bridge in the north between what exists today and what is coming in the future to help us through the disastrous years of unemployment through which we are passing. I want tourists to be there after these years as well.

We have good tourism in my area to the east and in the northwest they are a bit more fortunate than we are. In the east the tourist industry disappeared nearly completely in the late 1960s and 1970s, due to the fact people in the east were making too much money someplace else and forgot tourists. Today, what makes me feel good is that everybody is talking about tourism in the northeast and northwest. I think together we could have a new era of tourism, not only for Americans but also people in Canada and Ontario who want to visit the north with their families.

12:20 p.m.

We will have to look into developing more ski resorts, not just at Thunder Bay. There are other areas we could develop. We have to develop routes so that if I took Highway 17 and went that way, there would be more than one museum. We should work on the museums and the histories of each little town, and then we have to look at other attractions.

This is where the development councils will come to be useful. The first thing I am going to ask from them is to work on tourism and try to give me a tourism strategy. I will try to do that this year. In regard to the routes, we should not repeat ourselves. If there is a zoo in Earlton, there should not be a zoo in Kirkland Lake. It will be up to those committees to decide and say, "We will have one here, one there," etc., and make the rules to space them out.

An example is that Belanger guy in Earlton, who bought the zoo down the road. This year, 29,703 people went to that zoo in Earlton, and it rained all summer. So imagine next year. He had more people going to that zoo than went on the Polar Bear Express. I repeat, if we do not do something pretty soon in Moosonee and Moose Factory, there will soon be no more Polar Bear Express. People will not go any more.

We signed a contract with a consultant about a week ago for that area of the James Bay coast. Together with the native people and the people in Moosonee, we will try to get this together in the near future. At Moose Factory, Mr. Munro Linkletter is working on a program for a native museum with all the history. Thus, in summertime, we will have theatre with the native dances at noon when the train arrives.

If we are going to give grants, as I said to my colleague here yesterday, when we go to Management Board from now, if I give grants to natives or to other places to start a store or sell things, they must be built in the north. If they are not built in the north but in Japan, they will not get that money. I will go and get it back; that is for sure. From now on, if they are going to sell Indian crafts in the north, the crafts should be produced in the north. If they are not, they will have to go somewhere else. I will not give them the money.

There is pottery made in the north and pottery made in Ontario. I do not want any Japanese. I do not have anything against the Japanese, but the people are mad about that now. I have received letters and letters about this and it has got to end. I may have to enforce it with some money, for example, saying, "If you do that, I will give you more money. If you do not, I will not give you money."

That is the way we are going to go. That is the direction I want to take, and with the help of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, I can assure the member for Kenora that we will not let northern Ontario down on this one. We will do our utmost. I am committed to that, and I will do everything I can to put tourism back where it was in the 1960s in the northeast, and again, to get better tourism areas.

Last night I discussed the matter of lots on the lakes, to try to create some industry for towns such as Chapleau and Ignace. If they were allowed to sell more lots on the lakes close to those towns, people from the south could buy them and move. Tourism was not only meant to go to Barrie or Muskoka. We have lots of Muskokas to be developed in the north.

Mr. Bernier: I am most pleased to hear the minister support the tourist industry so strenuously. I am pleased to hear him relate to all parts of northern Ontario, from Moosonee to Kenora to Sault Ste. Marie and Parry Sound, and to have a handle on the needs of that area.

I am most pleased to hear he is going ahead with the seminars. That is a major step forward. There are new ideas and new thrusts and directions that have to come forward. I will certainly watch with a great deal of interest as he moves forward.

I cannot help but agree with his comment with regard to Moosonee and the Polar Bear Express. Previously, we funded the museum at Moose Factory. I hope he will continue that and expand on it and do other things that are really needed. There is no doubt in my mind that some of those people who used the Polar Bear Express were coming back a little disappointed that there was not much there to see or do. I commend the minister for his interest and concern about that very important industry.

Since we are dealing with the estimates, the actual expenditures of this ministry, I wonder if he could give us the exact dollar figure he intends to spend on tourism in the fiscal year that will wind up on March 31 of this year.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I will bring back some figures. We are using some money from the northern Ontario regional development program and the northern community economic development program.

Mr. Bernier: With great respect, this is the examination of the expenditures of this ministry. I direct my remarks to the deputy minister. Surely he could have those figures at his fingertips and make them available to us. To bring them back in the final hours of the estimates committee meeting is wrong. I do not think this has happened in previous years. When we ask for a figure, it is fair that we should be given a figure and not be sloughed and told we will get it some other time. I do not think that is correct. It is wrong. It is not satisfactory.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: We are doing the job, so the money is there. There is nothing wrong with it.

Mr. Bernier: I just hope the press picks this up, because it is a hell of a way to run a railroad, I can tell the minister that. We are looking at the estimates and we cannot get any figures. Why sit here and talk about dollars and cents, and the $160 million that the minister has to spend, when he will not tell us what he is going to spend it on? It is a waste of time. While I appreciate the minister's interest and his broad general concern, we should have some dollar figures.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Mr. Chairman, we have to excuse ourselves. We are rookies at this job. We are not all pros.

I want to assure the member that the money is there that those people are so glad about. At least if this money is distributed equally for each part of Ontario, it is balanced out. That is what I am getting at.

Mr. Bernier: It is all right to talk that way --

Mr. Chairman: Order. Will one of you please have the floor and stand up and the other sit down and not both be standing up or sitting down at the same time? The minister appears to have the floor at this point.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Okay. We will come back on Monday and pull out some figures on tourism, mining and all this. As the member knows, we just did some changing in --

Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to notice that there is not a quorum.

The chairman ordered the bells rung.

12:34 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: A quorum is now present.

Mr. Bernier: I would like to go on, Mr. Chairman, but there is nobody in the minister's seat. There is no one there.

Mr. Chairman: if the minister is in the east lobby, perhaps he will hear us and know that we are waiting for him to resume his seat to carry on with the estimates.

Mr. Bernier: I move that the committee rise and report.

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

Mr. McClellan: Can somebody explain to me why we are doing this?

The Deputy Speaker: It is because a motion was placed and carried that the House rise and report.

The House adjourned at 12:35 p.m.

February 7, 1986

YOUNG OFFENDER

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING HOME BEDS

YOUNG OFFENDER

SEVERANCE PAY

ST. CLAIR RIVER

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

SPRAY PROGRAM

CONTRACT WORKERS

DOMED STADIUM

CONTRACT WORKERS

FUTURES PROGRAM

RADIOACTIVE LEAK

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

INFLUENZA VACCINE

HUMAN RIGHTS

PETITION

SUNDAY TRADING

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTING

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TRANSFERRAL OF BILL 71

REFERRAL OF RESOLUTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES (CONTINUED)