Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 21, An Act to establish the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

Mr. Acting Speaker: When we adjourned at 6 o’clock, the hon. member for Lake Nipigon was still continuing his debate. I regret again that I didn’t recognize the fact that he hadn’t completed. I give him the floor at this time.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know what kind of inference I should take from the word “still.” However, I’ll be very brief; it is not my intention to rehash anything that has been said before.

I have always been willing to co-operate with any minister and any new initiative that he might choose to take and, in keeping with this approach in my response to the announcement by the government that this new ministry was to be set up, I said: “Fine, let’s give it an opportunity to work. Let’s give him a shopping list and hope he will heed the advice of fellow northerners.” I’m about to do that right now.

I want to give the minister a shopping list for an overall industrial and land-use strategy for all of the province of Ontario -- something that we in northern Ontario can relate to and something that will reverse the trend of this ever-increasing industrialization around the Golden Horseshoe.

In order to accomplish that, I hope the minister will stop trying to import southern solutions to northern problems. All too often, we have somebody down here in the ivory tower ordaining what must be done on behalf of the north, when all of the time we as northerners know that we need initiatives, new programs and new approaches to problems in the north from a northerner’s vantage point.

I’m not suggesting for one moment that we can do everything in the north in isolation. We can’t be isolationists, but I often say that the problems in the north are the result of the south having too much of what we don’t have enough of in the north. If we have a better balance in the economic growth of the province, a good many of our problems would automatically be resolved in the north.

We need new programs, new incentives, to redress the high cost of doing things in the north. I know you can’t do it wholly and solely on your own, I think that if we are ever going to come into our own in the north, we have to invoke the assistance and the aid of the federal government in order to redress the inequitable transportation costs in the north. I think it’s fair to say that everything we do in the north costs that much more because of the tremendous distances that are involved; because we are that much farther away from the major markets; and because a lot of the suppliers for secondary and tertiary materials are located down here in the Golden Horseshoe.

The provincial government, in concert with the federal government, must rationalize and equalize, and where possible and where necessary provide incentives by way of transportation costs and tariffs in order to make the north more attractive for secondary and tertiary industry. In order to redress the balance of the high cost of living in the north, we must make every effort to equalize the cost of home heating oil and the cost of gasoline, which are so important in view of the tremendous distances that we have to travel and the unusually low temperatures that we experience in the north.

Mr. Nixon: How much is gasoline in Schreiber today?

Mr. Stokes: It is $1.04 a gallon.

Mr. Nixon: A shame.

Mr. Stokes: In the heartland of Canada, right along the Canadian Pacific Railway and right along the main Trans-Canada Highway, we are paying anywhere from 12 to 16 cents a gallon more; this is so in my home town of Schreiber and it’s even worse in some other areas.

Mr. Nixon: Schreiber, did you say?

Mr. Stokes: Schreiber, that’s what I said.

Mr. Nixon: You have been converted.

Mr. Stokes: In order to attract people in ever-increasing numbers and trying to convince them that the north is a good place to live in, we must provide more money for an infrastructure for those communities that lack the economic base to do it themselves.

I read the banner story in the Toronto Star yesterday afternoon in which it was reported that the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the mayor of the city of Toronto opened a brand new recreational facility down near the Ashbridges Bay plant. Fifty per cent of the cost of that new facility -- a marina, a recreational facility -- 50 per cent of that came from the Ministry of Natural Resources; we can’t even get the money to repair a small dock in a small town like Kashabowie that doesn’t have any other facility.

Mr. Nixon: My paper says “MPP’s Raise Salaries 35 per cent.”

Mr. McClellan: Thirty-two per cent.

Mr. Stokes: These are the kinds of approaches to problems facing people in the north to which this ministry has to address itself. We need a dramatic improvement in transportation and communications facilities in order to get the people in northern Ontario into the mainstream of things, because the distances are there. We must get people to and from their jobs more quickly and more safely. Transportation and communications is the name of the game today in northern Ontario. This is another initiative that this ministry must take.

Another initiative is to provide funding for the Unorganized Communities Association of Northwestern Ontario. The minister right now has their budget on his desk. I suspect he is trying to weasel out of it. If we are really serious about helping those 50,000 people who live in unorganized communities in northern Ontario we must be serious about providing them with the funding so that they will be in a position to help themselves. If there is any one organization that has demonstrated an ability to do things for itself wherever possible, it’s that organization. The minister has recognized this for a long while and I think it’s absolutely essential that he provide the necessary funding for the Unorganized Communities Associations of Northwestern and Northeastern Ontario if he is genuine and sincere in his efforts to help those people.

The final thing I would like to say to the minister is that as a result of the new initiatives, as a result of the $120-million budget he now has, people are going to be looking to his taking new initiatives and new approaches to existing problems in the north. If he is serious, I think it’s absolutely essential that meetings be convened at regular intervals where he would seek the assistance, the counsel and the advice of the northern members of this Legislature on a regular basis, in concert with civil servants who have a primary responsibility for the delivery of services in the north, right from the assistant deputy minister level down to top civil servants such as the regional directors. I would even suggest that it might be appropriate to include the hon. member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle), who is the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, who seems to have an overview over a good many of the programs and who has the responsibility for coordinating the efforts of a good many ministries within this government.

If we were to have a vehicle whereby we could sit down together on a more or less non-partisan basis with the Minister of Northern Affairs, the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes), the top level civil servants and all of the members from whatever riding of whatever political stripe in this Legislature, we should assign ourselves the task of sitting down together on a regular basis and assessing the new initiatives that will be taken by this ministry, reviewing them, adapting them to suit local conditions; then we will be well on the way to justifying the setting up and the added expenditure resulting from the creation of this new ministry with its $120-million budget. I think that before too long we could come back and say collectively that we have done something worthwhile on behalf of the people of the north.

There is the minister’s shopping list. If he is really sincere, he will have our assistance, he will have our encouragement and he will have our help. The ball is in his court; now let’s get on with serving the needs of the people of northern Ontario.

Mr. Lane: I would like to make a few comments on this bill to establish a Ministry of Northern Affairs. As most members know, I have a very great interest in the bill. As a matter of fact, I think if I hadn’t been so persistent, we probably wouldn’t be here at this particular point in time discussing the bill.

Mr. Cunningham: You should have been the minister.

Mr. Germa: Good politics.

Mr. Lane: I was very happy last February when the Premier (Mr. Davis) announced the new ministry. I was also very happy when he announced that the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) was going to be the first minister for the north. I won’t be standing behind him lecturing him the way people across the way have been this last number of hours, because I feel he is a man of experience and a northerner. He has had several portfolios in the cabinet. I don’t think he has to be lectured as to what his responsibilities are. I am sure he knows what they are. I am prepared to think he is going to carry them out with some diligence.

The only thing I will say is that if a year or two from now the ministry hasn’t produced the way I think it should, then I will be on the minister’s back, but not at this time.

Mr. Roy: Don’t hold your breath.

Mr. Lane: I am a very honest type of an individual. I spoke in this House a couple of years ago and I spoke several times since about the need for this ministry. The first elected member to agree with me in the House was the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid). I am sorry that he is not here tonight to hear me make a good comment about him.

Mr. Cunningham: He’s planting trees.

Mr. Lane: He did say about a year and a half ago that he was listening to what I was saying and that we did need this type of a ministry for the north. Last night I didn’t altogether agree with everything that he said, but he said much that made considerable sense and I still feel he supports the ministry in total.

[8:15]

I was a little upset last night to hear the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) make some negative remarks about the ministry. Of course his being a southerner I suppose I can excuse him. He was saying out of one side of his mouth that this should have happened many years ago, but he’s saying out of the other side that it won’t work. How do we know it’s not going to work until we try it? I’ve heard that so many times that I’m getting a little confused as to --

Mr. Roy: Your track record is no hell.

Mr. Lane: -- how people make decisions before the event.

Last night the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) read at some length a very negative type of editorial. I’m not going to do that tonight, but I am going to read just a little bit of an editorial here because it concerns Elliot Lake. The member seems to feel that I’m not a very welcome visitor to Elliot Lake in spite of the fact that I won it on June 9. While the member from Sudbury is not in his seat, I’m sure he’ll read the record tomorrow. He used to practically live there, but since the 1975 election he only goes back as a guest speaker, so he really hasn’t got too much interest in Elliot Lake after all.

In any case, on January 8, 1976, which was some 13 months before the ministry came into being, the editorial of the Elliot Lake Standard said: “John Lane MPP Algoma-Manitoulin, is on our New Year’s honour list. He deserves a bouquet for his recent proposal concerning the Ministry for Northern Ontario.” I’m not going to read any more.

I could read more. Do you want me to read more?

Mr. Roy: No. no; please.

Mr. Leluk: Albert, are you the new leader over there?

Mr. Roy: It’s got to be nauseating when you read your own editorials.

Mr. Lane: It goes on to say: “It’s to Mr. Lane’s credit that he has glimpsed what could be possible with such a ministry. Now would everyone who is interested back up the MPP with a letter to support this very worthy New Year’s cause.”

Many of the people who have had a lot to say about this ministry have done nothing about it really. I’ve talked about it a lot. I went on radio with the mayor of Sudbury a year ago last January and the mayor of that time supported me in it. I went on TV with the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) last winter, on the Judy LaMarsh Program, and we discussed it there. I sent out over 300 letters to municipalities, Indian bands, Chambers of Commerce, Women’s Institutes and other groups in the north, and out of the replies I got 75 per cent of them supported the ministry, 11 per cent said no we don’t need it and 14 per cent said we’d like the idea but we want to have more information about it. That’s a little bit about the effort that I’ve put into it. Some of the people who are being very critical of it at this point in time have really not put any effort into it at all except to criticize it.

I have been communicating with the people. I know that they do want it, and I’m a little disturbed to think that the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and the member for Sudbury East have both taken a great amount of time in this House and other places to write and talk about the need not being there, they don’t want anything to happen. Yet I know that these guys are good members. They know what the needs are in northern Ontario, the same as most other northern members do, the same as I do.

Mr. McClellan: Support the amendments.

Mr. Lane: But unfortunately they don’t want anything done about it.

Mr. McClellan: Support the amendments.

Mr. Wildman: Yes; we want amendments, John.

Mr. Lane: So they fought me when I was trying to get the ministry formed. I can excuse the leader, Mr. Lewis, because he was not a northerner but I have no excuse for the northern people. They knew why the ministry was needed but they fought me; and they lost out, because on February 3 Premier Davis brought the ministry into being. So then they started to fight the minister and tried to discredit the minister. When they found out that he was a very popular man up north and the people wouldn’t buy that, they tried to discredit the locations.

When Mr. Lewis was in Sault Ste. Marie one day during the election, somebody asked him about the Ministry of Northern Affairs and the location, and somebody said, where would you have put it? He said, “I couldn’t have made a better choice myself.” Yet that is not what we hear from across the street.

Mr. Germa: Whose riding was that?

Mr. Philip: No one was trying to tell you where to put it, John.

Mr. Lane: I have heard it said that the offices were put in Kenora and Sault Ste. Marie for political reasons.

Mr. Germa: That is not pork-barrelling, eh?

Mr. Wildman: You don’t recall him saying that.

Mr. Leluk: Not your riding, Bud.

Mr. Lane: The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) and the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) had no trouble getting re-elected. If we wanted to make political marks, we would have put it some place where we wanted to win a seat. Obviously that was not the reason for where it is.

Mr. Germa: That is not how you work; pork-barrelling.

Mr. Cunningham: To keep the seat.

Mr. Lane: I am not going to talk at any length tonight, because too many people have talked too long already. The north is very near and dear to me, as I have said. I have worked hard to get this ministry. Many hon. members have heard me speak on many occasions, and I have had a fair bit of support from a number of them. But I’m concerned about two members of the third party who have really taken me to task several times -- not the two that I have mentioned. I heard one gentleman say last night that he would vote for the bill on second reading but he would vote against it on third reading unless the minister adopted the five or six amendments he wanted to make. To that gentleman, and to all hon. members, I say that I have read this bill, and it is broad enough and good enough to cover the things that need to be done under this ministry. I challenge the people of the third party to vote against this bill on third reading.

Mr. Roy: I just want to make a few comments on the bill, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Germa: Are you running for office?

Mr. Roy: No, I am not running for office. It is just that I find it somewhat nauseating to hear some of the things coming from across the House, and I think we should put some things on record about what some of my colleagues have been saying. Frankly, I thought that the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid) made an excellent speech last night; he pointed out some of the things that were of concern.

I have listened to the speeches of some of my colleagues on my left and, although they were critical, they have reason to be critical about some of the things that go on in this area. I especially underline what the member for Sudbury said about section 8 of the bill and the powers that are given under the regulations; that always concerns me. I think those were valid comments he made about the ministry, and I don’t see why the member for Algoma-Manitoulin should get all exercised because some member is critical about a particular part of a bill. My colleague the member for London Centre also made certain comments, which I think were very valid as well.

The government has a history of creating ministries which are supposed to get things together and make them more efficient, but the plans never work out that way. This whole policy secretariat was supposed to be most efficient, and yet year after year we are wasting $5 million. More than ever, I am convinced that the reason for these ministries is basically to keep a few people in good jobs, to keep these people at the proper salary of $40,000 or whatever a minister gets. We have told the government that this approach doesn’t work, and the government has admitted it doesn’t work.

This Ministry of Northern Affairs, as my colleague from London Centre has said, is supposed to be going to take away things from certain ministries and develop a cohesive approach to the north. But, as he has pointed out, we don’t see any reduction in any other ministry. I think he raises something that is very valid: If we are going to take some things from other ministries and develop a cohesive approach how come there is no reduction in the other ministries? I think these are valid comments.

Mr. Breithaupt: Because the whole is greater than its parts.

Mr. Roy: I don’t intend to spend too much time on this, Mr. Speaker, but I think I must say this for the record: It may well be, as some of my colleagues around here have said, that the Ministry of Northern Affairs is a good thing. But what makes us cynical on this side is that this ministry was created a short time before the election. We know that the Premier and the people on that side of the House are prepared to say anything come election time.

Mr. Cunningham: You can say that again.

Mr. Roy: And if one wants evidence of that, just look at the charter. There is the best evidence of that. It is a political thing, and, although it may well have some merit, what makes us extremely cynical on this side is that at the same time as he was creating a Ministry of Northern Affairs, the Premier named the member for Kenora as the Minister of Northern Affairs.

That’s where, in my opinion, there is a contradiction. How can the Premier be dedicated and say he is objective in his approach and wants to do something for the north when he puts in there somebody, as my colleague from Rainy River said, whose track record is as bad as his? That’s where there is a lack of credibility. I think that has to go on the record because of the minister’s record in the past. He can make all the signs he wants but he knows what he is. He has failed in other ministries and they found him a job and he should feel very fortunate to have that job. That’s basically what it is.

Mr. Grossman: He is competent; don’t you wish you could feel the same? Eat your heart out.

Mr. Roy: I don’t want to get into the minister’s track record and relate some of the things he said about provincial parks, as well as his record on pollution and on the question of miners.

Mr. Pope: You had better talk about something else.

Mr. Roy: I’m not afraid of saying it. He can’t come back on me. In my riding, I don’t think he can do very much.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You are not responsible, that is why.

Mr. Roy: I am not responsible? Do you know what you are? You are a political reject, that’s what you are. They have given you a job and if I was you --

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps we could debate the principle of the bill.

Mr. Roy: I think that is the principle of the bill, that minister there.

Mr. Pope: Maybe some day we will take a shot at you too.

Mr. Roy: Frankly, Mr. Speaker, these things have to be said. I think the less the minister says when he is sitting there to the comments he gets from various members, the better it should be, because he is very fortunate to have that job. Certainly he doesn’t deserve it and his record is not one which would encourage or make anybody enthusiastic about giving him that position.

Maybe I’m wrong, and I hope the minister proves I am wrong and becomes a success, but I tell him I am not all that optimistic when I look at some of the things that happened in the past.

I want to say, and I think it should go on the record, that my colleague from Rainy River said the person who might save the minister is his deputy. I really hope so. Looking at his record in various ministries and some of the things he has done, I can’t be all that hopeful or I can’t be all that enthusiastic about the government’s dedication towards the north.

Mr. Germa: I would be remiss in my duties if I didn’t rise to speak on this bill, even though a lot of words have already flowed on the bill, but as the representative of Sudbury, the pearl city of northern Ontario, it is incumbent on me to bring some views to the Legislature on the introduction of this bill. It is important, before we go to the bill, to understand the political realities that surrounded the introduction of this particular piece of legislation. It is not my style to impute motives --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The understatement of the year.

Mr. Germa: -- but I am highly suspicious of the motivation behind the introduction of this bill.

If we look at reality we have the Conservative Party in northern Ontario facing decimation. They have to pull the fat out of the fire in a hurry in order to maintain any semblance of credibility in the northern part of the province. They searched and searched through their bag of tricks and came up with the trick known as the Ministry of Northern Affairs, which in my mind is going to turn out to be the ministry of false hope.

From this false hope I think will come further violent resentment from northern Ontario. We must also understand that the resentment of northern Ontario is so high that we have a party in northern Ontario led by a Conservative who advocates separation of the northern part of the province from the southern part of the province. This movement is

growing. It’s unfortunate that this government has seen fit to neglect the northern part of the province to the degree that there are a group of people who would advocate separatism, balkanization of the province.

This government just fails to come through with programs which are going to alleviate the alienation. I am sure the minister knows that the leader of this separatist party, Mr. Diebel, a Tory from North Bay, is on the North Bay council as of this moment. He is now in a political position to push further his advocacy of separation. This is the kind of problem we in northern Ontario have been facing as a result of the lost direction of the Conservative Party.

[8:30]

To elaborate further on this feeling of resentment, in Sudbury on February 5, 1975, there was a conference called at Laurentian University and many dignitaries came from all over Canada to speak to us about regional development in the northern part of the province. One of the dignitaries there was Mr. G. L. Ruber, who is the chairman of the Ontario Economic Council. He had toured northern Ontario from Kenora to Moose Factory and when he was addressing this conference in Sudbury just one year ago, he said these words, and I’m quoting:

“I further concluded that the sense of frustration in northern Ontario is very deep, and indeed, in many instances verges on bitterness. This bitterness is rooted in the sense of being neglected by southern Ontario.”

And this man by no stretch of the imagination can be called a rebel. But the government has given us no choice in northern Ontario. The only choice that I have as a northerner is to remain a victim or become a rebel, and I have chosen to become a rebel. I just refuse to accept any more of the dictates that have come out of this government for the past 34 years.

The minister chosen, while he is a very affable fellow and is well known in northern Ontario, he’s criss-crossed the northern part of the province demonstrating his incompetence, and I’m sure that he will continue to demonstrate his lack of capacity to do the job that is called for from him.

Mr. Cunningham: Leo for governor.

Mr. Germa: If you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, the task that this government has handed this person. He’s going to be an expert on welfare, an expert on health, an expert on transportation; on the 24 ministries. This man is supposed, by some magic of a piece of legislation, to acquire the expertise to deliver all of the services of all the various ministries of the province of Ontario. I would suggest that all that was required was that the ministers who were then in place should have seen that the services were delivered, then we would not have the necessity of this secondary level of bureaucracy. To think that we have to put our faith in this kind of a Mickey Mouse program is just something that I reject.

The bill, the way it stands now, is absolutely empty and devoid of any purposes. If my friends to the right have the courage of their convictions, I’m sure they will come forward, when the amendments are put forward by the member for Sudbury East, to give this bill a little backbone, to give this minister something to be responsible for, to give this minister a challenge through which he’s going to have to correct the situation in northern Ontario.

One of the major problems I see in the north that the minister has to address himself to is the one-industry town. Many dozens of towns in northern Ontario grow because of a forest, they grow because of an ore body and there’s no other purpose for their existence. We all know that once you start mining an ore body that every ton is one ton closer to the last ton. We have not taken any precautions to ensure that these towns will have any viability once the ore body has been depleted.

At the conference I was speaking of in February, 1976, one of the other people who addressed us was a person in a position of influence in the city of Sudbury, Mr. Andrew Lacroix, who is the chairman of the Sudbury Regional Development Corporation. In his address to the assembly he tried to enunciate a policy that the government of Ontario could adopt. He said that the government of Ontario, were it to adopt the policy that he was writing, would go a long way to solving the problems which we are facing.

The ghost towns that were mentioned are not really ghost towns in the sense that no one lives there any more, but the people who do live there do so without purpose. The only thing that moves in the town is when somebody moves around the corner of the building to stay in the sunshine. There’s nothing else to do.

Anyway, Mr. Lacroix said that the policy that should be adopted should read in this fashion, and I’m quoting now:

“It is this government’s policy to ensure that maximum benefits are returned to the areas producing non-renewable resources before these resources are depleted, the objective being to reinvest a sufficient portion of the benefits derived from such primary industries to ensure that the communities will be able to maintain a real and useful existence without external aid as these resources become depleted.”

That is the kind of a city that I was born and grew up in. I know that the day is coming when the 100,000 people in the city of Sudbury are going to face absolute unemployment because we know that while the ore body has existed for some 40 or 50 years, its life expectancy right now is something between 20 and 30 years. And yet not one step has been taken to ensure that there is going to be a continuance of economic activity in the city of Sudbury once the ore body is depleted.

Another problem facing many of the communities in the north is the fact that we are a branch plant economy. Whether we’re a branch plant economy of the United States or a branch plant economy of the southern part of the province makes no difference, because by being in that position, the wealth generated as the result of the extraction of the resource is removed from the area from whence it was derived.

We know from long experience that a town or a city is just not a viable community on miners’ wages or lumberworkers’ wages. We need the high wages of executives. We need the high wages of research. We need the high wages of development. And yet we have been treated just like slaves in that our job is to produce the wealth and remove it from the community; and consequently the services which we enjoy, or which we do not enjoy, are just not available.

The regional municipality of Sudbury right now is $131 million in debt. In the past 12 months, they have not been able to do one capital project because they have reached the maximum of their borrowing powers. If they were to proceed further, I’m sure they would have to go into receivership. This is a city which has produced millions of tons of nickel, copper and 13 other elements over the past 50 years; and yet here we sit today, absolutely strapped as far as cash is concerned.

The lack of medical services has been cited very often in this House and I would just like to bring a couple of statistics to the attention of the House. I’ve spoken to this problem before, and that is the problem of expert medical services in the city of Sudbury.

In the area of cancer, the Princess Margaret Hospital is the centrepiece of the government of Ontario’s cancer treatment program; and yet we know that there are more than 500 people, new patients, who are discovered yearly and are brought to Toronto in order to receive treatment. Despite the fact it was brought to the attention of the government by the Cancer Institute of Ontario that no further construction should go ahead in Toronto -- that this should be diversified into the northern part of the province -- in 1976 we have 199 new cancer patients from Sudbury district, 80 from Timiskaming district, 127 from Algoma district, 119 from Cochrane. Right there is a catchment area with enough patients to make viable a cancer institute in the city of Sudbury or some part of northeastern Ontario.

This is part of the source of alienation and part of the reason why the people in northern Ontario are alienated. I just resent that because we were facing an election, the Premier (Mr. Davis), on February 3, got up and made this great announcement about the appointment of this ministry. I think in his statement to the House he identifies why something had to be done. In his statement he said:

“Northern Ontario, which encompasses almost 90 per cent of the land area of Ontario, being larger in size than the four Maritime provinces, houses one-tenth of the province’s population.” That is the problem which the government has not addressed itself to. The expanse of northern Ontario, the miles that we have to travel, the expense of travel, the climatic conditions -- all have not been addressed. Yet the government puts in a program like this which is not going to solve the problem. Considering the economics and the wealth that is produced up there, is it any wonder I’ve chosen to be a rebel rather than a victim?

The Premier went on to say: “Its economic importance is highlighted by the fact that the value of the province’s tourism, forest and mineral production from northern Ontario totalled almost $5 billion in 1976.”

That is the result of our work -- $5 billion a year. Yet you’ve heard the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) tell you that the dental car makes its circuit once every seven years. Every seven years, in some parts of Ontario, a dentist might come to your community so that you can receive service.

I don’t know why the northern part of the province hasn’t separated long ago.

Mr. Stokes: We have a dental car service that is putting partial plates into the mouths of Grade 8 students.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is not the government’s fault. It is from eating chips and pop.

Mr. Germa: Those are my feelings on this particular bill. I would hope that the government, when it hears the amendments, will consider accepting the amendments so that this minister will have some responsibility to deliver.

The way it is now, it just seems to be a pasture for the minister. It’s a retread job. We know that he was finished in his other portfolio. His incompetence there was demonstrated in the Elliot Lake debacle; the sinter plant debacle in Sudbury; the debacle in the asbestos mill in Matachewan; and the mercury pollution in the English and Wabigoon river systems. The history of death and destruction that this minister has allowed to happen in northern Ontario just does not recommend him to this particular job.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The hon. member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Pope: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to rise to present, on behalf of my riding of Cochrane South, my support for this bill. I do not think any members of this House perceive this bill as a total solution of special problems which we in northern Ontario face, but rather as an instrument on the ministerial and administrative level through which the demands of the people of northern Ontario and their representatives in this House may be forcefully presented. It will increase the commitment of other ministries of this government to northern Ontario and help to make the programs of their respective ministries work in northern Ontario.

The bill will also be an addition to the efforts of the members of this House, from all political parties, who represent the people of northern Ontario. I, for one, do not intend to have all of my requests for government action and assistance to my riding and to northern Ontario merely denied by other ministries because it is not in their jurisdiction, or slotted solely into one ministry, namely the Ministry of Northern Affairs. Nor do I perceive this as the intention of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

The intention of the Ministry of Northern Affairs is to be in daily contact, on an administrative level, with other departments; and with our minister in cabinet dealing with other ministers, the ministry will be acting as a watershed for the special problems of northern Ontario. Through this process, the perception of the people of northern Ontario of their government and its ministers will be brought, perhaps, more forcefully to the attention of the government.

[8:45]

There can be no doubt, as was described in the Ontario Economic Council report of 1976 on northern Ontario development, that northern Ontario faces problems with the pattern of urban settlement presently determined by resource availability, transportation systems and industrial services. This kind of development has resulted in dispersed settlement throughout northern Ontario. The result is isolation and lower labour force participation than in any other part of the province. In fact, it appears clear that growth of industrial output has not been matched by growth of employment resulting from this increased output. It is also clear that as a result of these problems, population growth is slower in northern Ontario than in the province as a whole.

However, I do not accept the concept advanced by the Ontario Economic Council that the government has a limited influence in determining the rate and pattern of regional development due to the limited capacity of the government to influence the environment of the north. I note with some satisfaction that the government believes it does have a great capacity to influence regional development. In fact the new ministry will have ministerial responsibility in many areas which will influence regional development, including the allocation of regional priority grants, the development of townsites, the development of resource transportation programs, the proliferation and improvement of resource access roads, aid and assistance to isolated communities, priorities for northern road construction programs, direct control over the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, input into the provision of basic municipal services, development of industrial parks, and a setting up of regional and district offices to more adequately serve the people of northern Ontario.

It is true that in terms of conditional and unconditional grants to municipalities, and special northern Ontario assistance grants, together with other programs sponsored by the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, northern Ontario in some aspects does get special consideration and certainly a higher level of subsidization for municipal services, municipalities and boards of education than is available elsewhere in the province. But to understand the magnitude of financial assistance and special government consideration that is required, we must remember that northern Ontario comprises 90 per cent of the total land area of Ontario. Consider that point when comparing special grants made available to northern Ontario municipalities and boards of education in proportion to the total financial commitment to all municipalities in Ontario.

It is also true that the commitment of the Ministry of Health to pay five-sixths of the cost of construction, rather than two-thirds as is the case in other areas of the province, is also recognition of special problems in northern Ontario. But again, compare basic health services in the north and those in the rest of Ontario, and the distances that must be travelled by the people of northern Ontario to obtain basic health services.

Mr. Stokes: You sound like Bill Ferrier.

Mr. Pope: A comparison will reveal the amount of services and facilities in health care that are available and easily accessible to the people of southern Ontario.

Mr. Reid: There’s a man who should cross the floor.

Mr. Pope: I, as a representative -- you do need another representative from northern Ontario over there --

Mr. Reid: We do.

Mr. Pope: I, as a representative from Cochrane South, on behalf of the people of Timmins, Iroquois Falls, Black River, Matheson, Ramore and Holtyre, am aware of the areas in which I feel this government must move, through the Ministry of Northern Affairs as a co-ordinating body and through the other ministries --

Mr. Mackenzie: We’ll see how much they do move.

Mr. Pope: -- if we are truly to establish economic prosperity and social opportunity for the people of northern Ontario.

For instance, it is clear that northern Ontario retailers pay approximately eight per cent of the total retail price of food products for transportation, whereas the average percentage cost for transportation in southern Ontario is approximately five per cent.

Mr. Cunningham: Leo will fix that.

Mr. Pope: This disparity is not reflected in all food products, as there are many food products on which there is one unit price throughout all of Ontario. However, there are food products which do reflect this disparity.

In addition, while we hear much discussion from all members of all parties in this House concerning the loss of agricultural land in southern Ontario, there exists in northern Ontario a vast potential for economic agricultural production which has not as yet been fully utilized. In fact, we have in my riding, specifically around the towns of Matheson, Val Gagne and Iroquois Falls, and in the Connaught area, lands which were originally granted under The Veterans’ Land Act program to our veterans for agricultural purposes; yet because of the economy of size in an age of agricultural mechanization, and because of a lack of marketing facilities and opportunities in northern Ontario, these lands have been abandoned and reverted to either the provincial government or to the municipalities in my riding.

One of the first priorities for the Ministry of Northern Affairs, as I see it, is the establishment in northeastern Ontario of a northern Ontario food terminal, which would not only relieve the pressure on the Ontario food terminal in Toronto but which would cut down on transportation costs, home both by the northern Ontario consumer and by all the consumers of Ontario. A local farmer could then sell his product to the food terminal in northern Ontario, thereby cutting down his transportation costs. Also, a wholesaler operating through such a food terminal could cut down on his transportation costs, and therefore costs of food products sold to the retail chains in northern Ontario.

Of equal importance, the establishment of a food terminal would stimulate agricultural development and research in northeastern Ontario and lead once again to a viable agricultural industry in the Cochrane clay belt, one of the most fertile agricultural areas in Ontario, indeed in Canada.

Regarding the question of energy, I see one priority of the Ministry of Northern Affairs has been the development, through the investment of the Ontario Energy Corporation, of direct flow generation facilities -- that is, electrical plants which generate electricity from the direct current of streams and rivers situated in northeastern and northwestern Ontario -- and through the development of lignite deposits in northeastern Ontario.

We in the north, I submit, suffer more from high heating costs than other regions of the province. Indeed, heating costs of $600 for a three-month period in the wintertime are not uncommon for a young family to bear. The question arises as to the means by which heating costs can be held down, without reducing our potential for development of new energy sources in the future by a short-sighted program of economic cutbacks.

I believe that the new Ministry of Northern Affairs should have some input to the Ministry of Energy regarding current and future commitments of the Ontario Energy Corporation to northern Ontario. Such development would also create more jobs for the people in my riding and add to the general economic well-being of the entire region.

I believe that, particularly in the area of transportation, the new Ministry of Northern Affairs should have some impact. I suggest that the Ministry of Northern Affairs immediately re-examine the system of per capita allocations, regional allocations and traffic count systems which are presently used to determine road construction, road maintenance, road by-passes, bridge construction and the installation of traffic lights in northern Ontario. Southern Ontario standards simply cannot be used to determine the needs in northern Ontario. Total daily traffic counts do not indicate in any way the problems faced by workers heading to and from Texasgulf, for instance, in the city of Timmins at specific peak times.

Mr. Wildman: You see all the problems, why don’t you do something about them?

Mr. Pope: I see all the problems and I see that they have existed for a long time, and I see that you fellows have done nothing about it. You have done nothing about it except bitch.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And he’s going to do something about it.

An hon. member: You have been the government for 34 years.

Interjections.

Mr. Mackenzie: You want to be careful about what you say about your colleagues.

Mr. Germa: That just tells me how rotten that gang is.

Mr. Pope: Financial allocations for the construction of a two-lane highway, such as Highway 144, do not indicate in any way the actual needs for wider shoulders and wider pavement required because of drain and weather conditions faced by the people of northern Ontario.

Mr. Germa: It’s worse than I thought it was.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Ottawa Valley northerner; how long have you been up there, two years?

Mr. Wildman: Oh come on, 10 years.

Mr. Pope: Allocations for road maintenance must not only be based on usage but also be based on the real need for access roads for the people of northern Ontario. As well, the special problems in maintaining pavements because of weather conditions and heavy frost in northern Ontario must be considered.

There is a real job ahead of the Ministry of Northern Affairs in aligning the transportation systems presently under the control of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications -- namely, norOntair and the Ontario Northland railroad -- with the transportations systems by road, air or rail presently under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

The norOntair flight schedule is out of date and there are no easy connecting flights in Sudbury and North Bay at the present time. Also, Air Canada has recently indicated it is changing not only its time schedule but also its routing system throughout northern Ontario. The north urgently needs a study of the existing norOntair structure and the possible future demands of additional air service, including jet air service, in view of some attempts by Air Canada in the past few years to withdraw its services from northern Ontario.

The new Northlander train, which is so ably serving the people of Iroquois Falls, Porquis Junction and Matheson in my riding, must continue to be improved. Specifically, some agreement must be finalized with the federal government to enable the Northlander to use the tracks between North Bay and Toronto at the proper speed for which the train was intended and purchased.

The policies of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission must not only be to improve their service to the people of northeastern Ontario, but also to expand that service as one of the major transportation centres in northeastern Ontario. It is, and must continue to be, involved in the Timmins region. One of the principles upon which the Ontario Northland Railroad was developed, and which needs to continue, was the need for that railroad to be a development railroad for all of northeastern Ontario.

The question of freight rate reductions is One that has been brought before this House and has been discussed by the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission on many occasions. Not only must the freight rate structure be reviewed in co-ordination with a review of the federal freight rate structure, but also any reduction must be an across-the-board reduction. Further, it must be accompanied by renegotiation of all shipping and supply contracts in northeastern Ontario, and not passed on to all retailers throughout Ontario or allocated to the profit margin of suppliers or wholesalers operating in southern Ontario. Perhaps the Ministry of Northern Affairs should initiate consideration of a unit rate structure or radii freight rate system, which will make freight rates meaningful, realistic and competitive and which will lead to an atmosphere in the transportation industry which will encourage development of processing and marketing operations in northern Ontario.

Regarding the matter of freight rates, unless there is some immediate improvement in the freight rate structures in the trucking industry in northern Ontario it will, I respectfully submit, be time for the Ministry of Northern Affairs to reconsider the use of PCV licensing systems in northern Ontario and to consider opening up the transportation of goods to any and all trucking operations which meet safety standards.

Mr. Wildman: Read the select committee report.

Mr. Pope: I note with some satisfaction that the Northern Ontario Development Corporation, between the years 1971 and 1977, allocated $62 million to 424 companies and operations in northern Ontario. While this is a good sign of the commitment of this financing institution operated by the government of Ontario for development in the north, it should be put in the context of the kind of commitment, as previously mentioned, that this government has instituted in the Oshawa area through the $240-million North Pickering project to encourage industrial development. Perhaps it is time for the Ministry of Northern Affairs to prepare the groundwork for similar provincial commitments to development in northern Ontario.

I would like to add that passing money holus-bolus into northern Ontario is not the answer to financial difficulties. We must ensure that investment will increase economic growth and expand social opportunities. We must ensure that any industrial activity which is encouraged to locate in northern Ontario will be met with a favourable economic climate, which must include access to Hydro, water, lands, financing institutions and realistic transportation at an affordable cost.

All of the items which I have just mentioned are matters in which the Ontario government now has a real voice as far as policy and costs are concerned. It is therefore clear at this point in time that the Ontario government can to a real extent control the development of industrial growth in northern Ontario. It, therefore rests upon this government to seriously consider development of economic growth in northern Ontario, and hopefully the Minister of Northern Affairs will provide the detailed basis upon which such development can take place.

Hopefully the new Ministry of Northern Affairs will also play a role in the development of tourism and tourist facilities in northern Ontario, specifically in northeastern Ontario. I note with regret that the James Bay frontier is the only travel association which does not have a tourist development zone within its boundaries. Hopefully the Ministry of Northern Affairs will play a role in the development and progress of these tourism development areas.

In summary, this government has done much to improve the quality of life for the people of northern Ontario. The people of northern Ontario recognize the improvement, which was particularly noticeable in the last election. However, having established a sound funding basis for basic municipal services and for the continued operation of other municipal organizations and boards of education in northern Ontario, it is now time to move on to other areas of concern. With government action and the prodding of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, hopefully we will get scene improvement in food costs, heating costs and housing costs, as well as increasing economic diversification and industrial development in northeastern Ontario, which will be a benefit directly to the people of northeastern Ontario by providing more jobs and better jobs. In short, by establishing in northern Ontario a sound economy the province of Ontario will also benefit.

[9:00]

The province must build the north so that it does not need subsidization by the central provincial government but will stand on its own and contribute through taxation to the economic livelihood of its own communities, and therefore benefit all the people of Ontario. The north was developed by people who went north during the Depression years to find a job, people who wanted to live in the bush or closer to it or who ended up in the north by chance. The north was developed by companies which wanted to invest their money there. The north was developed by working men and women who worked day shift, afternoon shift and graveyard shift to make enough money to get by on and to secure some economic future for themselves and their children. Their working and living conditions, and their pay for their work, improved as a result of their own efforts and those of the companies and union locals in the north.

This tradition of hard work and strong in- dependence now falls upon us. Recognizing significant contributions this government has made to the north, we must now develop new programs and new ideas in order to bring permanence, security, diversified economic development and cultural and social opportunity to our northland.

This ministry is only the beginning. If it is greeted with a sense of realism and goodwill it can be a significant beginning.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members.

Mr. Wildman: I am pleased to participate in this debate on the bill to establish a Ministry of Northern Affairs. I should make clear at the outset that I support the bill in principle.

However, as it is written it is rather vague and general and doesn’t really set out exactly what the purpose of the ministry is except in very general terms. As a result, I will certainly support the amendments to be put forward by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) when we get to the committee stage. I would hope that the other members of the House would consider them carefully and also support them in order to give the ministry some teeth, some power to do something about the problems in the north.

Obviously, the establishment of such a ministry by this government after 34 years in power is an explicit admission of its failure and the failures of the various other ministries to serve the very serious needs of northerners. If other ministries were doing their jobs and delivering the services necessary in northern Ontario, then we wouldn’t need a geographically-based ministry rather than one based on function as all the other ministries of this government are.

We have suggested something like a super- ministry, to deal with problems that come under jurisdiction of all of the other ministries but covering one area of the province, because those other ministries just haven’t done the job. But then when the bill is brought up the ministry isn’t given the power, or at least it doesn’t say how it is going to use whatever powers it might have, as a result of regulations, to bring about the needed development we desire in northern Ontario.

When the minister introduced the bill he said this was an example of a renewed commitment -- I think those were the words he used -- of the Conservatives towards northern Ontario problems. I really can’t see that it is a renewed commitment. The only member on the other side of the House who really deserves any credit for the final admission that the government hadn’t been doing the job it should be doing in northern Ontario is my colleague and neighbour from Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane). I will quite readily admit it was through his serious campaign over the last couple of years throughout northern Ontario and at Queen’s Park that the government finally agreed to set up this kind of ministry. I realize he was talking about this ministry as a result of the fact that the government had had this kind of ministry before, or at least a branch of another ministry in this role, and then decided it didn’t need it. The member for Algoma-Manitoulin had decided it obviously was needed.

Mr. Mancini: I thought it was the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle) who did that.

Mr. Wildman: Frankly, I am sorry the member is not here, because I want to commend him on his persistence in saying that something had to be done and that this ministry might be a way of doing what was necessary in northern Ontario.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I feel very sorry for the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, that after all of his hard work in trying to persuade the government to set up this ministry, he should see someone else appointed to the job when previously he had been the only northern Conservative who did not have a cabinet post. It being his idea and with all of his work, it must be a terrible disappointment for the member for Algoma-Manitoulin not to have the opportunity to try and make it work.

Mr. Mancini: Just terrible.

Mr. Davison: Give it up, it’s the least you could do.

Mr. Swart: For the people of Ontario, particularly in the north.

An hon. member: Let John have it.

Mr. Wildman: Having said that, I can understand why the member for Algoma-Manitoulin was so much in favour of having this, Mr. Speaker, and having this kind of ministry.

I hearken back to the comments he made last session during the debates on the estimates of the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development, where he used language which I guess was not very parliamentary, but he had had a bad day and it had been a long debate. He said that this government, and the investors of the province and the people of the province in southern Ontario, at least generally, tend to treat northern Ontario as if it were -- well, I won’t use the term he used, but let’s say a part of the anatomy which usually is sat upon in relation to the rest of the province.

The member, I think, really did express the situation for northerners and the way this government has treated the north generally over the last 34 years, and I commend him for his hard work in finally persuading the government to see a little sense. It’s unfortunate he couldn’t persuade the government and the various ministers and their ministries to respond to the needs of the north without the need for this bill, Mr. Speaker. He was unable to, but at least he got this far.

The problem with this bill as it is presented, Mr. Speaker, is as I said it doesn’t really have any specifics in it. It doesn’t say how the government intends to use this ministry to co-ordinate development in northern Ontario.

In sections 7 and 8 of the bill it suggests that under regulations all of the things the ministry will do will be set out at some future date and how they will go about doing them will be set out. That’s hardly satisfactory, I think Mr. Speaker. If a ministry is going to be created surely we should have some idea of how it is going to operate and what it is going to do specifically, so that we can judge better whether or not it is going to serve the purposes for which it is established.

Hon. W. Newman: It’s a lot more than you’ll ever do.

Mr. Foulds: Go back to the funnies, Bill, just keep reading.

Mr. Wildman: Anyway, I think this ministry needs power. I think it needs the power to do something and it needs the funds to do something.

We’ve heard a lot about the various problems of the north and the debate has gone on for a long time. I won’t go into a lot of them, but considering that I represent a riding that is 400 miles long -- one of the largest ridings in the province covering a large expanse of northern Ontario -- I think I should relate some of the specific problems in my area that this ministry and this bill, if it is to be effective, must respond to.

As has been said many times, it was also mentioned I think by the new member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) and various other members, the main problem we have in northern Ontario is that we have a resource-based economy that is in most communities based on one industry. When that industry runs out, the community is almost bankrupt.

Some of the comments made earlier in this debate regarding a town that is the second largest community in my riding, Blind River, I think deserve comment. It was stated that the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) said that Blind River was a ghost town. Ha didn’t say that. He commented about the problems in northern towns and the fact that once the resource is gone many towns become ghost towns. Then he went on to talk about the need for industry in Blind River.

Blind River, as everyone knows, is not a ghost town. It’s a very vibrant little community. The comment made in this debate by the member for Nipissing (Mr. Bolan), that you can’t even see a cat going up and down the street in Blind River is a bit extreme; sometimes you even see “Venturi’s” walking up and down the street in Blind River.

There are a large number of people in Blind River, many of whom work in Elliot Lake and commute every day --

Mr. Mancini: What about the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa)?

Mr. Wildman: -- fifty miles one way, because this government refuses to build a road from Blind River directly to Elliot Lake, a road that is often referred to as the Granary Lake Road.

During the campaign the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) came into Blind River, just before the election, and commented that the ministry would review the need for that road.

I wonder what role this new ministry will have in those kinds of reviews. It’s not really set out in this bill. I’m glad to see that the government is finally coming to its senses and is going to review it, but after this road has been in demand for 20 years, I wonder why it took until two days prior to an election for this government to see the need. That road would cut the distance between the two centres to about 19 miles and would be for the economies of both communities, not just for the commuters who are working in Elliot Lake and living in Blind River.

Blind River needs industry; it’s without any major industry. There are some new possibilities there now, but it needs industry. This ministry has to be given the power and the funds to produce secondary industry in northern Ontario; otherwise it will remain resource-based, and communities will remain one-industry towns that are dependent upon a resource -- either forest resources or mineral resources -- which when depleted creates a situation in which the economy and the jobs disappear. As long as we are resource-based, we will not have the kind of job opportunities that our youth need in northern Ontario; they will continue to leave the north and travel to southern Ontario for jobs and our population will continue to drop.

As the member for Cochrane South indicated, the population is not growing in northeastern Ontario; not only is it not growing it’s dropping, while the rest of the province is growing in population. We have congestion down here, we have the need for jobs up there. This ministry has an opportunity to change that situation, if it has the power and the funds to produce diversification in the economies of northern Ontario communities.

One of the major reasons we are generally without secondary industry in northern Ontario; the transportation costs, long distances and the discriminatory freight rates alluded to in the debate.

It costs less to purchase plywood that is produced in Hearst, in Milwaukee than it does to purchase it in Hornepayne. Hornepayne is 85 miles from Hearst and Milwaukee is considerably farther than that. That is hardly conducive to the development of a good construction industry in northern Ontario. How are you ever going to develop any kind of integrated economy when you have a freight rate structure which makes it easier to transport unfinished products out of northern Ontario than finished products, makes it more expensive to start any kind of industry and makes it very difficult -- especially with our capital markets as they are now -- for any small entrepreneur to start a business and to get going.

The member for Cochrane South alluded to some of the problems of highway transportation as it relates to freight rates, and I would just say, for his benefit, that he should do some work over the summer recess and read the select committee report on the highway transportation of goods and he would see a very different recommendation than the one he made to the government here in that report. We don’t need to have chaos in the transportation industry in order to have development in northern Ontario. What we need is a concentrated effort by this government to rationalize freight rates, to ensure that the transportation facilities are available in the north --

Interjections.

Mr. Philip: He knows a lot more about transportation than you do. Why don’t you read before you talk?

[9:15]

Mr. Pope: You’re an expert in everything.

Mr. Philip: Talk to the member sitting beside you.

Mr. Wildman: -- that we have the kinds of roads that are necessary; that we don’t lose our railroads because of an ill-advised federal policy which says that whatever railway transportation doesn’t pay will be eliminated, as is the case with the Budd car service between Sudbury and the Sault. The passenger service there has been discontinued as a result of federal policy. During the campaign, the Premier said that if this happened, if the federal government didn’t live up to its responsibility as far as transportation is concerned, the present government would step in through Ontario Northland and its rail, bus and air services. Ontario Northland, I understand, is to be given to this new ministry. As of July 1, this new ministry will be involved in co-ordinating those transportation services and providing service to the north.

I would certainly hope that this ministry, if it is really sincere in wanting to respond to the needs of the north, will look immediately to the Budd car service between Sudbury and the Sault to ensure that that service will be continued. But I wonder, where in the bill does it say that the minister will have the power to do anything about it? I’ve searched the bill. This ministry really should be the one handling it, as far as I can see in the bill, but it doesn’t say what it’s going to do or how it’s going to do it.

In relation to economic development in general, we of course have other agencies of this government. Under the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, we have the Northern Ontario Development Corporation as one agency that is responsible for economic development in the north. I wonder what is going to be the relationship between this ministry and NODC. How is NODC going to operate in relation to the co-ordinating function of this ministry? I hope the minister will be able to make that clear to us.

NODC has a very sorry record on the north shore of Lake Huron in my riding. Over the last five to six years, NODO has invested about $1 million of taxpayers’ money in four manufacturing firms -- that’s all it has done as far as secondary industry is concerned -- and every one of those firms has gone bankrupt since they’re received those funds. This has resulted in tremendous losses to the Treasury. The assets of some of those firms have been sold off by the receivers; in one case there was a loan of about $500,000 and the result of the sale was a loss of about $200,000 to the Treasury.

What is this ministry going to do about that kind of situation? Does it have the power or the direction to do anything about it as it is put forward in the bill? I really don’t know. It doesn’t seem to say in the bill what it’s going to do. Section 7 says the minister can delegate the power to the deputy minister or any other officer of the ministry under “such limitations, restrictions, conditions and requirements as the minister may set out in his delegation.” Then in section 8 it talks in very general terms about policies, priorities, co-ordination and so on, but it doesn’t say exactly what the ministry is intending to do.

I find it difficult to determine how I can disagree with this bill. I support the bill. I find it difficult to disagree with it when it’s so vague and general. If it says we’re going to have a ministry that is going to do something about the problems of the north, well, I can’t be against it. I can be somewhat sceptical when I take into account the record of the government over the last 35 years, but I can’t be against it. I can be hopeful that it will do something.

One thing though that does make me a little sceptical about the performance of this ministry is the performance of the minister and his officials in dealing with some problems since he was appointed to this job. I’ve raised a number of problems with the minister since he was appointed and asked him to look into them and to do specific things that would help. I’ve had mixed results. I would just like to allude to a couple of those, Mr. Speaker, by way of example.

As everyone knows, one of the major problems we have in northern Ontario is the fact that unorganized communities do not have the services that other communities take for granted. One of those major services is fire protection. There’s a little community in my riding on the CN line about 40 miles east of Hornepayne named Oba. About 90 people live in Oba. When you consider that, you can see that five fires over the last year and a half is a pretty large number, especially when some of them destroyed homes completely. The last one destroyed the general store which was the major meeting and shopping place for everyone in town. You can certainly see the vulnerability of the community.

I raised this matter of fire protection in Oba with this minister when he was the Minister of Natural Resources. I said: “Why not give the people of Oba, who are organizing a volunteer fire brigade, some used MNR equipment, like a pumper and some hose so that they can provide themselves with some fire protection?” The minister was very sympathetic to the problem but indicated the ministry could not give that kind of equipment because it uses it until it’s worn out and it wouldn’t function at the time that they would need it. At which point I suggested they might give them some new equipment. That wasn’t acceptable either.

Anyway, during the whole period of this discussion, the people of Oba themselves got tired of waiting for the government and they collected money from everybody in town. They got together and they bought a second-hand pumper. Then they started to run into problems from the other ministries of this government. First thing, the Minister of Revenue said they had to pay sales tax on this pumper. I must admit, since the Minister of Education is here, I got some sympathy from the Ministry of Education on the problem. They were willing to have the pumper designated as educational equipment so it would be exempt from sales tax, but not the Ministry of Revenue. They just wouldn’t go for that at all.

Finally, after the publicity over this whole schemozzle and almost every ministry except the Ministry of Education had failed to respond to the needs of this northern community, all the publicity generated by that led the government to agree to provide some equipment. That was a precursor of the announcement of the Isolated Communities Assistance Fund by the Treasurer in December in which he announced that $750,000 would try and provide services in unorganized communities that this government had failed to provide. Now, of course, that fund is to be administered by this new ministry.

I’m still very interested in fire protection in a number of other communities in my riding, so immediately after the appointment of the minister I contacted the ministry and the Isolated Communities Assistance Fund branch and asked about a number of communities that were interested in getting fire protection in my riding. While the fund was being administered by the Minister of Natural Resources, this government did show some desire to respond in that it did agree to provide -- it hasn’t provided them yet -- funds for fire protection for Montreal River and Searchmont.

But then, after this minister was appointed -- and this is what makes me sceptical about how he might act after this bill is passed and he has the ministry officially and it is going to administer the Isolated Assistance Fund -- a number of other communities in the same area applied and they were denied. I wrote the minister about it. One specific area I was talking about was Aweres township, which is just north of Sault Ste. Marie. The Sault Star interviewed the minister, I understand, and he was quoted in a front-page story in the Sault Star of March 12 in which he said in part that he was anxious to help and that special consideration could be given to Aweres. The fact that Aweres didn’t fit quite into, I think, the very stringent guidelines of the program didn’t matter because he said again, “The whole program is a flexible one. I certainly won’t be locked into that set of criteria.” He said he would look at a valid proposal by the Aweres residents if they made one.

I found that very encouraging and that seemed to me to be an indication that this ministry was going to do something about the problems of unorganized communities. I went out to Aweres and, in concert with a number of other people, helped to organize a steering committee to organize a fire department and look into the costs of equipment that would be necessary and so on.

It is interesting that even though this ministry has been operating and is supposed to be dealing with the Isolated Communities Assistance Fund, you still have to go through Natural Resources. Mr. Hendry in the Thunder Bay office handles the fire protection program.

Mr. Stokes: Not any more.

Mr. Wildman: Not any more? That has just changed then. I have nothing against Mr. Hendry. I think he worked very hard at the job.

Anyway we organized this and we made an application. Then in the first week of May the steering committee secretary received a letter from Mr. Hendry denying the application, even though the minister had said they would look at it favourably or at least indicated they would. They denied the application because of the size of the population and location of the township which had already been pointed out to the minister before they applied in the first place. I wonder how much this indicates this ministry is going to respond to the needs of unorganized communities. It was very disappointing.

I contacted the Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs after this denial, and asked him to review the application and he said he would. Then in the last week of May the committee received another letter from Mr. Hendry confirming the denial after the review. I have since again contacted Mr. Campbell, the deputy minister. He has promised again to review the application. The problem in that case is that under that program they have to be less than 10 miles from a major centre that has fire protection.

Mr. Reid: More than.

Mr. Wildman: More than, right. This is ridiculous because even if they are eight miles or nine miles from a community, they can’t get adequate protection, especially when that municipality doesn’t want to give them protection because it has enough to do in its own municipality. Anyway that’s why they refused.

Later on, another community in the same area, Batchawana, appears to be going to be refused in its application as well because of a study which has been carried by the Ministry of Housing on organization in the area, ignoring the fact that Searchmont is in the same area and received assistance under the program.

I don’t want to go on on that particularly. I just hope this is not an indication of how this ministry is going to operate. Apparently, the ministry refused these applications because of a study being done by the Ministry of Housing and because TEIGA indicated there might be organization in the area at some time in the future, perhaps in the near future.

The fact of the matter remains that there isn’t fire protection there now and it is needed now. The people there want to work on it, want to develop it and are willing to put in their own efforts and their own financial contributions. They are collecting financial contributions now. The committees are doing that. They have gone to the whole problem of getting estimates and talking to the Fire Marshal, talking to the fire department in Sault Ste. Marie and talking to the fire department in Echo Bay and so on to find out what is needed and what they should be doing.

What happens? They appear to be refused by the ministry. I hope that’s not an indication of how effective this ministry is going to be, because we need services in unorganized communities in northern Ontario. We don’t need just fire protection.

Mr. Reid: We need them in organized communities too.

[9:30]

Mr. Wildman: Exactly. We need fire protection, we need water and sewers.

It’s interesting. When that program was announced -- a total of $750,000 for the Isolated Communities Assistance Fund -- it was said that it might help to produce water and sewer systems. Well, $750,000 for all the unorganized communities in northern Ontario. You know, that wouldn’t even pay for 100 feet of pipe, if you are going to look at a water and sewer project, so that money is inadequate.

This ministry, if it is going to be effective, has to have funds. It has to have planning staff. It has to have the ability to bring about the services and the development we need.

Unorganized communities also need recreation facilities. We have been able to get some funds from the Ministry of Education and some funds through Wintario for various kinds of things, if there are groups available to do something in unorganized communities. But generally, this government for years has failed the unorganized communities. It hasn’t provided the services there that are necessary. And the record since that time of the ministry is not encouraging.

I really hope the specific problems I have alluded to will be rectified by this ministry. That’s why I am supporting the bill in principle. But I certainly agree with the member for Sudbury East when he said that amendments have to be made to the bill to provide the ministry with the funds and the power to actually do something.

I don’t want to have to keep writing letters, riding the merry-go-round, as I have had to with the fire protection problem in Sank North. I want to have something done there. I would like to see those people who have done the work themselves -- the local people who want to do something, want to produce fire protection for their community -- get it.

I know the decision isn’t final, because I have asked for reviews upon reviews, and hopefully it’s still being reviewed. I hope that decision will be acceptable.

I hope this ministry will have the funds and the planning staff, in co-ordination with the organized communities of the north shore, to determine what kinds of industries are viable in these areas, to produce the secondary industry we need, to provide the jobs that we need in northern Ontario, so that we don’t continue to have this emigration of young people from the north and this high cost of goods and products in northern Ontario. I hope this ministry can do something about the transportation problems we face throughout northern Ontario. But in order to do that, we have to strengthen it.

I will support this bill in principle, Mr. Speaker, but I certainly agree that we need to amend it and make it more powerful.

Mr. Foulds: It has been an interesting debate --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Will you go for 10 minutes?

Mr. Foulds: The minister wants me to filibuster for 10 minutes so he can come back and speak? That’s the member for Sault Ste. Marie who is now leaving. I don’t know if he will make it back, but it’s a minor diversion in these parliamentary proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, it has in fact been an interesting debate. I know I read all the speeches that I haven’t heard. Although some of the members of the House from southern Ontario may think the northern members from all parties have been somewhat repetitious, I think it is an indication of the depth of feeling, the depth of commitment we all have to our part of the province, to that part of the province that has supplied so much wealth, so much manpower, not only for this province but for the world.

I rise to support the principle of the bill on second reading, the principle being, presumably, to establish a ministry that will provide, deliver and create services for northern Ontario, some of which have not yet occurred there. But -- and I want to say this as unprovocatively as possible -- the bill is an admission of failure on the part of the Conservative government to service that area of the province properly for 34 years. Even more importantly, it is an admission of failure on the part of all governments in the history of this province since Confederation to deal with the needs of that part of the province -- that part of the province that has, if I may say so, been exploited for the benefit of the rest of the province.

But I think that the attitude we have is that we will give this government a last chance for death-bed repentance before its final death, to see if it can do something with the north. We’ll give this government a chance to prove it means more than the mere statements that have issued from the government for, lo, these many years.

There are two encouraging signs. One of them is the ability that the ministry may have and that it has demonstrated to take quick and effective action in times of crisis. I refer specifically to the quick action during the election campaign in the Cobalt disaster. There may have been mixed motives there, but nevertheless it was done, and it was done quickly and the commitment appeared to be there.

There also was the action that was finally taken, after a lot of pressure from the former member for Fort William, to come to grips with the crisis drought situation in Thunder Bay and area and in northwestern Ontario. So much so that I’m even slightly convinced that the rains that have fallen in northern Ontario since election day, June 9, have partly been as a result of the cloud seeding done by the deputy minister personally. I think he’s known within the backrooms of the ministry as The Rainmaker, the Keith Davey of the new ministry, and that the water table will slowly rise.

Mr. Stokes: Puts out fires created by others.

Mr. Foulds: The second hopeful sign was, frankly, the commitment that I detect being demonstrated by a number of civil servants to the new ministry, not only those who have been fairly highly visible and appointed, but a number of people who have worked in the north in other ministries who are deciding it’s worth the gamble to take on a job with the new ministry to see if the thing will work.

If the ministry is to provide and deliver and create services that haven’t already been in existence or have been delivered relatively imperfectly over the last 110 years, it does indeed have a very tall job. I would like, as quickly as I can, to touch upon four major areas. There have been a number of speeches made about the difficulties in health and education and a whole range of areas that I won’t go into. But I do want to talk about the environment, the economic, social and cultural development of the north, the cost of goods and services, and transportation. I hope I can weave these into a coherent pattern that will make some sense.

In the debate there has been some mention made of the Treasurer’s (Mr. McKeough) move about the $10 licence fee to counteract the excessive cost of gasoline in the north. While that move is welcome and while it doesn’t come into effect until next February, and while it doesn’t affect the half-ton trucks which many northerners use --

Mr. Wildman: Forty-five per cent.

Mr. Foulds: Forty-five per cent, my colleague points out to me -- I suppose the move was accepted.

But it doesn’t come to grips with what I consider to be an even more fundamental problem with regard to the oil and gasoline industry in northern Ontario, and that is the outrageous cost of home heating fuel. It does nothing to redress the imbalance there. And that is particularly important in the north because the climatic conditions force us to use heating for a much longer period of time and we pay unduly excessive taxes because we must pay it on larger amounts at a larger base price.

This government does have the responsibility and the authority to regulate retail prices. I would hope one of the new tasks of this new ministry, one of the first tasks, would be to take a look at the retail prices throughout northwestern Ontario, to review the detrimental impact that has on the individual consumer, but also on the economy as a whole. I consider that to be one of the major reasons that there has been the lack of economic development in the north that has occurred so far.

Transportation costs, and transportation generally: I want to deal just with freight rates, because my colleague from Algoma has dealt, symbolically, through the situation between Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury, symbolically with the difficulties in passenger service throughout the north.

It is ironic, as my colleague from Lake Nipigon pointed out many years ago, that a load of timber can be shipped from Longlac in his riding to Ottawa for the same price, if not slightly cheaper, than from Longlac to Thunder Bay within the region. We all know the impact that excessive freight rates have had, on northwestern Ontario in particular, in terms of the economy.

I would like to make one simple, positive suggestion to the minister and to the ministry, and to his colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). It seems to me it would make a lot of sense if this minister, along with his colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications, could in fact make representations to the federal government that northwestern Ontario in particular be included in the prairie freight-rate structure region, because we all know it costs less to send a car from Toronto to Winnipeg than it does from Toronto to Thunder Bay. If we could have, through this ministry, closer liaison with the three prairie provinces that experience the same difficulties and the same problems -- not exactly the same problems, but similar problems in terms of freight rates and in terms of transportation -- it seems to me that would be a very useful initiative that the ministry could take.

I’d like to talk for a moment, and I’ve talked of this before and I would hope that the minister and his officials would look at the remarks that I made on the amendments to The Environmental Assessment Act, the Hartt bill, because I did deal with this topic to some extent then and I won’t repeat what I said then. But I think one of the keys to development throughout the north, and in the northwest in particular, is that we need to diversify the industry in the one-industry towns and throughout the region so that the region can in fact be more homogeneous.

As I said at that point, we in Thunder Bay have no desire for Thunder Bay to become the hog town of northwestern Ontario; it is too expensive in social terms and it is too destructive of the hinterland, of the region itself. If you have a strong region and a strong diversified economy in the one-industry towns, that makes the city itself stronger because it doesn’t suffer the impact when one of those industries in the one-industry towns goes belly up.

[9:45]

I would therefore strongly recommend to the minister consideration of acceptance of the amendment put forward by my colleague from Sudbury East that would establish the northern Ontario tomorrow fund. Because we all know, for example, that the minute a mine opens, no matter how rich the body, no matter how long we project that it will last, it is in fact the first day in the death of the community built to support that mine.

If we invest in the costs of the services, schools and sewers and lighting, for the community, it just makes sense to start investing in developing an industry to take up the slack of employment as the mine depletes -- as the resource exhausts itself we must therefore diversify.

I want to list a number of ideas for the kinds of industries associated with the woods industry that we should be positively looking at: the manufacture of skis, toboggans, thread spools, the cores that we wrap the paper on in the mills. And we need to use more effectively than we have in the past the species of wood that still are available.

Why don’t we go into book publishing? It makes eminent good sense in a region like the north because we could carry the industry right through from the chopping of the trees to the printing of the books. I see no reason with modern technology why a viable book publishing industry could not be set up on a regional basis in northwestern Ontario.

I think the recent Lovekin-Elwert-Richard report, of which the minister has a copy, points out the difficulties that face the region. If we don’t have some kind of additional input in the development of industry there we will face stagnation by the 1990s -- real stagnation.

A suggestion in that report was the development of the high technology industries. I think that that should be looked upon positively because the components are small, or they could be small, and the transportation factor may not be a prohibitive factor in developing the industries. After all, if Volvo can set up an assembly plant in Nova Scotia, surely we can set up things like the development of electronic plants, the development of the camera industry, the development of things like vacuum cleaners and the manufacture of jewellery.

I want to say one positive thing that the government has done with regard to the mining industry in northern Ontario, particularly in my region of Thunder Bay. That was the very simple designation -- largely under pressure from my colleague from Lake Nipigon, and a lot of other pressure -- the very simple step of designating amethyst, the very pretty and very beautiful stone, as the gem stone for Ontario. That itself has developed a small cottage industry of jewellery manufacture all around northwestern Ontario and in the Thunder Bay area in particular. And if you can do that, with amethyst, with that simple step with some imagination, it seems to me you should be able to do that with other minerals and with the development of a jewellery industry throughout the northwest.

I suppose I could go on -- manufacture of leather goods.

Mr. Martel: Mining equipment.

Mr. Foulds: The development of mining equipment in the north-central part of the province. It just makes a lot of common sense because you’ve got the resource there that needs the equipment that you can try it out on. You can do the research and development right there on the spot.

Mr. Stokes: It would be a switch from moving tree-harvester manufacturing to the south.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, it would be a switch from moving the tree-harvester operation from Thunder Bay to southern Ontario.

Well, the examples proliferate and I won’t go on. But if it was considered at one time that it might be feasible to establish a shoe factory on the English-Wabigoon or the Whitedog-Grassy reserves -- the idea was at least kicked around -- surely it makes some sense to look at that too in other areas of northwestern Ontario where in fact it might be snore viable than it was in that particular case.

I think it is important, when we talk about development in the north, for it to be understood that at least we on this side of the House are talking about carefully planned, sane development. We’re not talking about growth for growth’s sake or development for development’s sake. The reason we want growth and development at a reasonable pace is that we want the development of jobs and the development of a sound economy. We don’t want a continuation of the boom-and-bust cycle that we’ve experienced for so long. We want an economy that will be there for a considerable period of time, several hundred years.

One of the things we have complained about in this party is that the resource exploitation of the north continues apace. Almost 76 per cent of the people in northwestern Ontario, I believe, work directly or indirectly in the forest industry; nevertheless, six out of every 10 jobs related to the forest industry are in southern Ontario and not in northern Ontario, where the major part of the resource comes from. That’s one of the things that I think we can no longer tolerate. We must expect this ministry to have the guts and the clout to say to the rest of the government, “You’ve got to decentralize from the Golden Horseshoe,” and the government must have the guts to decentralize from the choked regions around Metropolitan Toronto.

There is one thing that I think we must keep in mind in this whole debate too; it’s one of the things that I think was misunderstood about some of the input that was put into the Design for Development plans of the late 1960s. I remember being at one of the most stimulating conferences on Design for Development held at Quetico Centre, when it was in its formative stages. Everyone there said we want to maintain the kind of life that we have now. But I think that somehow was distorted, as it went through the plan and into its final stage, to say that we were satisfied with the status quo. I think that led to an undue emphasis on the development of tourism.

I think tourism is an important industry if it’s kept in perspective. But if it becomes the dominant or the major employer in a town or region, it can have an undesirable economic effect because it is the first industry that is subject to tight world markets.

Aside from some rather tragic individual and glaring exceptions, of which we all are aware, the environment in the north is not bad. Most of the people that I talk to in the north, while they want the controlled, planned and sane development, also do not want to sacrifice those kinds of things in the north that we do enjoy and love.

By the way, I noticed that the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) made a very interesting statement. I thoroughly approved of it because it was one of the best statements from a Conservative I’ve heard. He said that what this government has to do is control the industrial growth in the north. I haven’t heard a Tory say, so succinctly and so blatantly, that we should control the industrial growth of the north.

Mr. Wildman: They believe in free enterprise, don’t they?

Mr. Pope: You have not been listening.

Mr. Foulds: If we had said that, all the Tories would have been jumping up and down, shouting that we were rabid radicals of some kind.

Mr. Pope: You haven’t been listening.

An hon. member: The Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) would go bananas.

Hon. Mr. Norton: We know what you really mean.

Mr. Mackenzie: He really doesn’t mean it, eh?

An hon. member: He said it half an hour ago.

Mr. Wildman: He has not learned to be a realist.

An hon. member: Take him outside and talk to him, John.

An hon. member: Just take Norton out.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Are you a real NDPer, Bud?

Mr. Foulds: Yes, Norton sold out fast. One last comment. I think it is important that this ministry recognize that what happens in the north happens to all of the people of the north -- natives, immigrants, white people who have been there for centuries. The development of the cultural, social and economic fabric must take place without any confrontation and with the full confidence of that very great range and mix of people. If we blow that, we can in fact be sitting on a powderkeg. This ministry has very heavy responsibilities to make sure it gets the confidence of that whole range of peoples.

Mr. Speaker, when I started to speak in this debate, I said I rose to support the principle --

Hon. B. Stephenson: To speak briefly.

Mr. Foulds: No, I didn’t say I was going to speak briefly. I was one of the few people who didn’t say I was going to speak briefly. I knew I wanted to speak with some feeling and at some length.

Mr. Reid: He has never spoken briefly in his life.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If only it had been with some clarity, we would have been all set.

Mr. Foulds: I can’t help it if you’ve got cotton wool in your ears and you left. I really can’t help that.

Mr. Reid: He went to get the cotton to put in.

Mr. Foulds: It’s all right. I’m going to walk out on you when you start to speak.

Hon. Mr. Norton: You sound as if you feel hurt.

Mr. Martel: John, are you going to support this?

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, when I rose, I rose to say I supported the principle of the bill at this time on second reading --

Mr. Havrot: You smell like a rose.

Mr. Foulds: -- but I want to tell you that I support even more enthusiastically the very constructive, positive amendments that have been drafted and submitted by my colleague from Sudbury East.

Mr. Havrot: That is a disaster.

Mr. Foulds: Those positive, constructive amendments will give this ministry the strength and the authority to do the job that needs to be done. This ministry does need to be a powerful ministry and it must be a ministry that has some clout. It is a ministry that must have the contact with the democratically elected community councils of the unorganized townships that TEIGA now has with the municipalities through the PMLC throughout the province. This ministry must have that contact with democratically elected councils so that they are representative of those individual small communities.

It must be a functioning ministry and that is why I support the bill. But I will support those amendments even more enthusiastically, because those amendments are the only way we can strengthen this ministry and give it the clout that is necessary to knock the heads together in the rest of this government to bring justice to northern Ontario.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. S. Smith: Get the feathers ready for your hat, Leo.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: May I say in winding up this particular debate after some five or six hours of input from the members across northern Ontario --

Mr. Reid: Some more constructive than others.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- I want to express my appreciation to each of those members for the contribution that he or she has made. As they fully recognized, this was the whole exercise of this particular bill, that if this new ministry was really going to be the eyes and the ears and the voice, as my colleague from Fort Williams pointed out, then we had to have the input from day one, and the input was very graciously received. I can assure the members on both sides of the House that the next several weeks will be spent going over those remarks very carefully, reviewing the constructive criticism that was advanced.

Mr. Reid: That will be a first.

Mr. Nixon: They should be separately published and bound.

Mr. S. Smith: Especially the minister.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In fact, I may even send a personal invitation to the leader of the official opposition to come up to northern Ontario and join me in an extensive tour.

Mr. Eakins: Stay overnight at Minaki Lodge?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, we could even go to Minaki Lodge too, sir.

[10:00]

Mr. S. Smith: I have been to your riding.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If Stuart can’t make it he will phone.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I guarantee the reception there would be a little more hospitable than the reception the leader of the third party received at that particular time.

Mr. Philip: It was much more hospitable than for the other two.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s unfair.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment briefly on some of the remarks that were made. I think many of the members of the opposition commented on the length of time that it’s taken this government to establish this new and exciting ministry that will do the things for northern Ontario that we are all hoping for.

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, no.

Mr. Reid: He is putting his staff to sleep.

Mr. Eakins: What an exciting minister.

Mr. S. Smith: At least he will do less harm than he did in Natural Resources.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I sensed a real sincerity by the northern members on both sides of the House to do the things we’ve all been wanting to do for some considerable time and, certainly, the co-ordinating and administrative roles of this ministry will enact many of the things that they have pointed out.

They speak of the 34 years that this party has managed the affairs of this province.

Mr. Roy: Mismanaged.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would point out to the hon. members that there comes a time for everything to happen.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We were elected. The people chose.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If you look at the last five, six or seven years and look at the northern programs that have been developed by the Davis administration -- and I say that with a great deal of sincerity --

Mr. Roy: Hang in, John.

Mr. Reid: Not for the Kenora riding.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- the Northern Ontario Development Corporation, the Northern Ontario Transportation Commission, the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission which takes in norOntair, the Isolated Communities Assistance Fund -- all programs designed to assist those people north of the French River.

Mr. Nixon: The Spadina Expressway.

Mr. Reid: Oh, you are playing around on the fringes most of the time.

Mr. S. Smith: And sometimes south of the French River.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s obvious, if you put them together -- the regional priorities budget and the other responsible areas of setting highway construction priorities --

Mr. Reid: You get the money from the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Put them all together and it’s obvious you have a ministry that can produce something for the benefit of all people living in northern Ontario. Add those administration responsibilities to some coordinating responsibilities that will look after the priorities, the programs of all other ministries; put the input of all that together and it makes good sense in this period in our history that we move on with the establishment of this particular ministry.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s a bargain to get you out of Natural Resources.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I just want to touch briefly on some of the remarks made by the members opposite. I want to compliment the member for Rainy River. I think he made a number of very good points. One very central one, of course, which we all share and which he recognized, is an improvement in the cost of transportation in northern Ontario. Certainly, this is a matter which is absolutely essential if we are to encourage development, not only of processing and secondary manufacturing but to keep all our basic industries competitive. I say that with a great deal of interest because, if we’re not competitive we’re not, of course, in the market at all. One of the outlying factors contributing to that non-competitive position --

Mr. S. Smith: What has stopped you for 34 years?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- is that we have in some of our industries the high cost of transportation.

An hon. member made some comment about the role and the functions of the particular ministry. I would ask him to look at section 8 of the bill. It clearly outlines there, in very broad general terms, a number of points as to what the responsibilities are and the areas of jurisdiction that we’ll have.

I know many of the members commented in a political way about the announcement of this particular ministry coming at a time when it did. Certainly, after 34 years of managing the affairs of this province -- and I know that the members opposite will agree -- things really can’t be that bad in northern Ontario, when on June 9, 1977 --

Mr. Mackenzie: Admit it, you pulled another one.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- a majority of the northern members were returned to the government side of the House.

Mr. Wildman: Plurality.

Mr. Bernier: In fact, there were two or three who came very close in the third party, so that we could have added those to make about nine.

Mr. Foulds: You didn’t get a majority. You didn’t get eight out of 15.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, we have seven out of 15.

An hon. member: We will next time, relax.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have, we have seven.

Mr. Reid: That is why we have minority government.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have more than you people have.

Mr. Foulds: You’d better learn to count.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: And we pretty nearly had two more.

Mr. Speaker: Could we get on with the bill? Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Really, if things were that bad -- and I have a great respect for the electorate, the people out there -- the people out there know what’s going on and they recognize the direction this government was taking and the efforts we were making to accomplish things and do things; and you know what happened, you know what happened on June 9. So I just can’t accept the argument --

Mr. Roy: Yes, we know what happened.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Don’t you speak. You lost two.

An hon. member: You listen.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You lost two.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we get on with the business of the House?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You lost a seat, you didn’t win. You didn’t win in the last election.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You lost a seat. Do you remember that? You fail to remember that.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You think you won.

Mr. Roy: If you had any honour at all, you would read our remarks and resign.

Mr. Speaker: We are wasting valuable time. Will the hon. minister continue with his response and please keep to the bill? Thank you.

Mr. Havrot: Okay powder puff, keep quiet.

Mr. Nixon: We know we didn’t win, but you lost.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, those are the facts; those are the facts, really.

Mr. Roy: Do you have some evidence?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The evidence is in this House, right here on this side of the House. You see the evidence there. The people of the province have spoken.

Mr. Roy: Where is your majority? You guys bombed and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They have spoken.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They have asked this party to carry on and we will carry on.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Three percentage points and we sneaked through.

Mr. Speaker: Could we continue with the bill please? Thank you. Order.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Big winners.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As I said, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have a great respect for the electorate of the province of Ontario. We have accepted our responsibilities, and certainly one of those responsibilities is to establish this new ministry and get on with the job of responding to the requests of those who live in northern Ontario.

Getting back to the ministry itself, one of the questions that was raised was the location of the offices. The regional offices are being established in Kenora and in Sault Ste. Marie, with district offices in Thunder Bay, in Sudbury and in Cochrane. The northern members know full well, if they take that map of northern Ontario and look at it and study it for a minute, they will see --

Mr. S. Smith: And lean a little to the left; it depends how you fold the map.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They will see that the whole area of northern Ontario has been carefully covered by the administrative setup and by the placing of those offices in those strategic centres.

As one of the members said, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, if we had been doing it for political purposes do you think we would go to the ridings we were sure of?

An hon. member: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The riding of Kenora and the riding of my hon. colleague from Sault Ste. Marie?

Mr. Reid: The truth is you weren’t sure of them.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, we would have gone to Rainy River.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Is that why you didn’t come, Stuart?

Hon. Mr. Bender: We would have gone to Port Arthur, where 300 votes separated the candidates. That’s where we would have gone if we had done it for political purposes. We went to the extremities of the northeastern and northwestern regions.

Mr. Reid: Explain that one.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We went to the extremities to pull that part of northern Ontario closer to the centre and to Queen’s Park. The whole thrust of this new ministry is to bring Queen’s Park closer to northern Ontario, so we make no apologies.

Mr. Nixon: The head office is going to be here in Toronto anyway.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In fact I said at the FNOM conference in Parry Sound -- which the Leader of the Opposition attended, I think a day after I was there -- I said to those municipal leaders at that time that if there is a weakness in our delivery system, if it clearly points out there is a gap in our delivery system, we are prepared to look at it. We are not locked into these particular locations.

We want to improve, and certainly as you establish a new ministry there is going to be room for improvement. We accept that; it is on that basis that I accept the constructive views of members on both sides of the House.

I think the other point that the member for Rainy River made was the jobs that are required -- the lack of opportunity in northern Ontario. In fact, he touched on communications in the remote areas. I just want to point out to him that this government has done a tremendous amount with regard to the improvement of communications in northern Ontario -- ETV, to which the member referred, is now in Sudbury and in Thunder Bay and will be extended into other parts of northern Ontario.

In fact, during the election campaign I had the pleasure of making a very extended visit through my riding, going up to Sandy Lake, which is an area that I visit on a very regular basis.

Mr. Reid: Didn’t do you much good.

Mr. Stokes: You lost that, as I recall.

Mr. Reid: Ninety per cent against.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- and it was a pleasure to have Chief Tom Fiddler in the gallery today as my guest, along with all the chiefs from northern Ontario. And it was a pleasure to walk into Tom Fiddler’s home --

Mr. Reid: You did better when you never went near them.

Mr. Speaker: All the other hon. members had a chance to speak. Will the minister be allowed to complete his remarks?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He called me into his home, way up in Sandy Lake, and, as I walked in he reached to the wall and he switched on the light and he said, “Leo, look at that. Hydro right there.”

Then he walked over to the telephone, he picked up the telephone, he dialled two numbers. He called his son Jonas, he said, “Leo is over here. Come on over, I want you to meet with him.”

Then he walked over to the corner -- listen to this, Mr. Speaker -- he walked over to the corner of the main living room and he turned the switch on his television -- a colour television at Sandy Lake.

An hon. member: But no picture.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: All those services had arrived within the last 10 days.

Mr. Reid: That’s good timing.

Mr. Breithaupt: Just before the election. Ten days.

Mr. Roy: What date was that?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I point this out to you, because I don’t think the members realize -- maybe the member for Lake Nipigon does, because his area is covered by that particular program.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is a $13-million program shared equally by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and Bell Telephone that is bringing instant communications. And if the Leader of the Opposition wishes to call the chief at Sandy Lake -- I don’t know if he realizes it, but he can dial him directly right from Toronto. I don’t know if he realizes it. And Pikangikum the same way.

Mr. S. Smith: Did you predict an eclipse of the sun while you were up there as well?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: So I just point that out to the member.

Mr. S. Smith: You should have brought a lighter with you as well. An amazing firestick. He will have a flick of the Bic if this keeps up.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This has really happened within the last few days, so that we have made a tremendous amount of progress in northern Ontario. Even the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) recognized the progress that has been going on in northern Ontario -- a southerner who sits back here, 1,200 miles away from northern Ontario and is able to recognize the tremendous --

Mr. Wildman: You’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel when you are using him as a source.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- developments that are occurring in northern Ontario. Sure there’s lots to be done. There is no question about that; I think we all realize that. Of course, this is the reason that this new ministry is being established.

We can talk about increased tourism. The hon. member mentioned Crown land camping as an area that should be looked at very carefully. He pointed out in great detail how the pork-and-beaners were moving in and exploiting the resources of northern Ontario. Well, we tried the Crown land camping experiment, a three-year experiment, in northwest Ontario. That information now is being carefully tabulated within the Ministry of Natural Resources. I am hopeful of, and certainly I will be pressing for, some further program that can be extended right across the north that will make sure the resources are carefully controlled and in the best interests of all the people in northern Ontario.

I believe there was some mention that in the bill itself there was no reference to native peoples in northern Ontario. I just want to point out that the programs that we will be administering will be for all the people of northern Ontario. We have native peoples living in all parts of this province, so in no way do we want to segregate that particular group in our communities in this particular bill. But we will be looking after their needs equally as enthusiastically as we will look after the needs of all other communities in the north. I just make that point very clear.

Many of the members touched on the single-industry communities. I would just point out to the hon. members that in the last seven years since the Davis administration took over the responsibility of administering the affairs of this province, there hasn’t been a new single-industry community established in this province under the new guidelines that we accepted in Design for Development.

[10:15]

Mr. S. Smith: There is not a new mine on the drawing board, for heaven’s sake.

Hon. W. Newman: Maybe that’s your fault.

Mr. Reid: You do not call Pickle Lake a community?

Mr. S. Smith: Oh sure, there is a grocery store as well as a mine.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, there’s an established community there.

Hon. W. Newman: Have you ever been in northern Ontario?

Mr. S. Smith: I have been there about a dozen times.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Right. But I’m looking at Ignace, Mattabi Mines. In no way do we allow a new community to establish adjacent to the mine.

We established South Bay Mines, at Confederation Lake, a totally portable community. Everything is built on a temporary basis. It’s all mobile homes. That is the kind of thrust that we’ve been concentrating on and this is one of the 75 recommendations, as the member for Lake Nipigon will recognize, in Design for Development. And that is the thrust that we’re going.

Mr. Wildman: That is your solution. Mobile home parks as a solution.

Mr. Nixon: Right. Fix it so they can move out.

Mr. Foulds: That sounds like a program of Tsar Nicholas II.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: And also we’re responding to those one-industry communities that may experience a period where their ore body will be exhausted. I think of Atikokan as a typical example. The member for Rainy River is well aware and certainly very familiar with the problems of that particular community.

We’ve already responded to it, as he well knows, with the establishment of a district office of Natural Resources, with the implementation of the Quetico Park plan which will bring a new economic thrust to the Atikokan area. A new hospital was established in Atikokan; a new airport. And we assisted the community in bringing in the waferboard plant -- the Pluswood Company -- creating 125 jobs. And now Ontario Hydro is establishing a steam generating plant in Atikokan. That’s the kind of thrust we will accelerate with this particular ministry in place.

Mr. Reid: Going to use this in the next campaign.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I say this to reassure the members from northern Ontario that we will not have a repetition of the problems of the past.

Mr. Nixon: How did they do things without a Ministry of Northern Affairs?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: But the thrust is there and certainly I want to recognize the support in principle that both parties have given to this particular bill.

I just want to deal briefly with the member for Sudbury East because after all he is the official critic of this particular ministry in the third party. He quoted in detail from an editorial written by Michael Atkins, who writes in the Northern Life in the Sudbury area. He went into great detail to outline how Michael Atkins was quite sour on the new ministry. But what he failed to do was to wait a few days and to see the editorial that Mr. Atkins wrote on May 11, after attending a meeting at the municipal advisory committee in northeastern Ontario. I think it’s well worth putting into the record, because he makes a complete reversal. For the sake of time I won’t put the entire editorial on the record, but I will just put one or two lines, just to get the thrust --

Mr. Martel: Go ahead. Give us the whole thing.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- the thrust of his editorial to refute entirely what the member for Sudbury East has already put on the record.

He goes on to say: “In fact, I’m persuaded, if not entirely convinced, there might be hope for the Ministry of Northern Affairs.” There, you see?

Mr. Germa: There might be hope.

Mr. Foulds: That’s called a rave review for you.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s completely contrary to what the member for Sudbury East put on the record. So already there has been a change of heart in the Sudbury area to which the member made reference.

Mr. Wildman: That was only after he heard about the amendments. Then he thought there was hope.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister only has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would just remind the member for Sudbury East that before the establishment of this new Ministry of Northern Affairs, while it’s certainly not patterned after those in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, we did look at their operations. In fact, we went as far as the province of Alberta to look at what they were doing.

In the province of Alberta they don’t have a Ministry of Northern Affairs, but they have a commission set up. When I visited them this spring they indicated to me at that particular time that the commission had worked itself out and that they were seriously considering the establishment of a Ministry of Northern Affairs in Alberta. I explained to them the thrust that we were going in and they were extremely interested. In fact we have already directed to them a copy of our particular bill along with other information that I’ve given the hon. members.

So there is that kind of interest out in western Canada. The member knows full well that the northern affairs branch in Saskatchewan is a total failure. The one in Manitoba is much better; it has been very productive. We took some ideas from the province of Manitoba; I won’t deny that. We have added to it and we have built on the strength of what we saw in Manitoba.

Mr. Martel: You’ve left lots out too.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We know we have the basis of a ministry that can produce and can do the things to which many hon. members referred. Many hon. members also dealt with specific issues within their particular ridings relating to road construction.

I think the unorganized communities attracted a tremendous amount of attention because they are a concern; they are a concern not only of myself but of all of us in the government party from the Premier and the Treasurer to all members of this government -- and that is why we have established the isolated communities assistance fund.

Mr. Martel: Are you going to accept our amendments?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It was very plain, following the introduction of Bill 102, that the type of control suggested in that particular bill was not acceptable to the people in unorganized communities of northern Ontario. The isolated communities assistance fund, with which the members now are becoming more familiar, is the answer -- at least on an interim basis until we get something better in place -- and it is working very well.

Mr. Martel: Are you going to accept our amendments?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would point out to the hon. member for Sudbury East that if there is an unorganized community in his particular area which wants assistance for street lights -- that is the example he used -- then we can find a way to get funds into that particular area if there is a community nucleus to carry on the responsibility within that particular area.

We have already approved a minor grant at Rossport in the riding of Lake Nipigon; it’s a $2,000 grant to assist in paving a dock or wharf surface. I don’t know if the hon. member has been made aware of that yet or not.

Mr. Martel: Will you accept the amendments then?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Those are the kinds of things we can do through the isolated communities assistance fund. It is there and in place to assist the unorganized communities in northern Ontario.

Mr. Martel: You will accept the amendments then.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member for Fort William for his very strong support and enthusiasm for the establishment of this new ministry. His comments that this ministry will have the eyes, the ears and the voice of northern Ontario, and the responsibility of bringing those requests and the problems to the attention of the government were I think, excellent comments. I certainly look forward to his strong support in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. Foulds: John Lane isn’t going to be parliamentary assistant then?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The comments of the member for London Centre, of course, were a little disappointing. They were of a very strong political nature. He talked all around the bill but gave us no constructive criticism. I will certainly not commend him for that, because I don’t think he has really visited northern Ontario to be able to speak with any authority.

Hon. W. Newman: Like his leader.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I also want to recognize the contribution made by the member for Nickel Belt and his comments with regard to the delivery of service, economic development and certain job creation that will occur in northern Ontario. Those are things that we have in mind; no question about it. I think it is fair to say that we are thinking along the same lines. I think it is also fair to say that the expectation of many people in northern Ontario for the Ministry of Northern Affairs is exceptionally high, and I don’t want to stand here in my place and say to the member that I will be able to respond to all of those particular requests or answer all those particular problems.

I can tell the member that we have a dedicated staff. I am particularly pleased that the member for Port Arthur recognized very early in his comments the calibre of people that we are bringing into the new ministry, from the deputy minister down. He is a northerner from Chapleau and has a tremendous amount of experience in government and in northern Ontario.

The assistant deputy ministers, Bill Charlton and Herb Aiken, along with many others, are northern-oriented; they have that northern flavour, that northern feeling. That is the kind of feeling they are going to take away from this particular debate and carry on with, because they are the type of fellows that we northerners really want to administer the affairs of this new ministry. I want to take exception -- if I can just go back a moment, Mr. Speaker -- to the member for Sudbury East in his comments with regard to obtaining a document that was prepared for my particular ministry.

Hon. W. Newman: I’d just ignore him.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He said, “I just happened to get my hands on a document, and I won’t tell you how, prepared for the ministry, in a brown bag. These brown envelopes, even in the new ministry, they manage to get out. There was a very interesting document prepared for the ministry by a planner, and it says” -- and he goes on to create --

Mr. Martel: You said last night I said a cheap plan from your ministry.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, it’s right here; I’ve got the copy of Hansard.

Mr. Martel: I didn’t involve your ministry people.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This is Hansard, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Sudbury East had his opportunity to speak.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I wish you would correct Hansard, because I’m quoting.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister will continue.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am quoting from Hansard, it’s right there. It’s on the record.

Mr. Martel: Read it.

Mr. Foulds: You need to take comprehension in reading.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: But, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. minister will continue. There’s very few minutes left.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would just quote from page four of that particular document that was sent to my ministry on February 18 by the director of long range planning, department of planning and development for the regional municipality of Sudbury. It was a letter directed -- it could have been directed by anybody, but this was a planner in Sudbury -- where is the member for Sault Ste. Marie? I’m sorry he’s lost, or rather he’s left --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- but the whole thrust of this document, about which the member left the inference that it had leaked out of my ministry --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It hadn’t leaked at all. He likely got it directly from the planner himself, because all it deals with is the parochial attitude of the Sudbury area to the establishment of the regional office in Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Martel: It doesn’t deal with that at all.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would ask the member for Sudbury East, Mr. Speaker, and I won’t bore the House with --

Mr. Martel: It doesn’t deal with that at all.

An hon. member: You’ve got the wrong document.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: If he supports it I will put the comments on the record then.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s point of order.

Mr. Martel: The point of order I have, Mr. Speaker is that the minister is rather erroneously misleading the House in that the document I have --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: Let me just --

Mr. Speaker: If the minister misquoted the member, he may correct it.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the document I have does not make reference to the location of the ministry offices in the Sudbury area whatsoever, or the Sault. It doesn’t make any reference to it.

Mr. Hodgson: You are backtracking now, Elie.

Mr. Martel: That is just not factual.

Mr. Speaker: All right. May I point out to the hon. minister that it is almost 10:30. Will he be able to wind up his remarks in the next moment?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh yes.

Mr. Roy: Hopeful, eh?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Rather than belabour the House, I want to recognize very quickly the contribution made by the member for Lake Nipigon. Certainly his knowledge of northern Ontario is broad and in depth, and I just want to express my appreciation to him -- for this particular contribution.

An hon. member: Great job.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He gave me a shopping list which we will carefully examine, of course, and review in some depth.

Mr. S. Smith: I am sure he wishes he were here to hear that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I also want to recognize the contribution made by the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, who had a tremendous part to play in the establishment of this new ministry, and to recognize his contribution; not only in this particular debate but in the weeks and months that have preceded the establishment of this particular ministry.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are going to read that back to him in a year.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In finalizing my comments I think the member for Cochrane South made a very valuable contribution in one of his maiden speeches in this House. Certainly it’s obvious he has a grasp of the problems in northern Ontario. We will of course be examining his comments with a great deal of interest and sincerity, and hope that we can come to grips with the problems that he has recognized for us.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes my particular remarks.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 21. Shall this motion carry?

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells the House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.