role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

October 22, 1984

32nd Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

DEATH OF GRANT NOTLEY

ORAL QUESTIONS

OTTAWA VACANCY RATE

ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE NORTHERN ENVIRONMENT

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

ENERGY CONSERVATION BUDGET

ORGANIZED CRIME

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

HEARING FOR LIQUOR LICENCE

ASSOCIATION LABOUR DISPUTE

WINE INDUSTRY

ARBITRATION AWARD

STAFFING OF REST HOMES

PETITIONS

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LABOUR DISPUTE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

DEATH OF GRANT NOTLEY

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, it is with an enormous sense of sadness that I inform the House of tragic news that I know shocked members of all parties: the death of Grant Notley on Friday evening in an airplane crash.

As members know, Grant Notley was for many years a member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta. Most recently he was the leader of the official opposition in that province, and for over 10 years he was the leader of the provincial New Democratic Party in Alberta.

Grant Notley was a friend of mine and a friend of a great many people on this side of the House. He was an extraordinarily dedicated individual. He was a person of enormous talent, of great conviction and of great integrity. He was without question one of the most hardworking and dedicated people I know.

I had occasion to drive around Alberta with him a few years ago. Most recently I had occasion to fly in a small plane for a couple of days with Grant when Arlene and I were doing some political work with him.

It is with an enormous sense of sadness that I pay my respects and my tribute to Grant Notley in this forum. I know that as I fly out tomorrow to the services in Edmonton and in Fairview, all members will want to join with me in expressing their sincere condolences to Sandra and to all the Notley children, as well as to members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, who share with us this great loss of a wonderful person and a very great politician.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I want to associate the members on this side of the House with the comments made by the leader of the third party.

It was not my privilege to know Mr. Notley personally, but I would certainly want to share with members of the House the experience of most of us as we learned the news of the untimely death of a fellow parliamentarian.

One was taken by the immensity of the shock and, indeed, by the statements of the Premier of Alberta and others with respect to the personal loss they felt. Notwithstanding the so-called adversarial role in our system of government, this gentleman enjoyed respect on the basis of being a decent human being with a very high degree of civility in his approach.

I am sure all members of the House would want the leader of the third party to take with him the sincere regrets of all members of this House, particularly as they are expressed personally by him to the widow and members of the family.

It helps to illustrate in an all-too-realistic way the risks that are attached to public service, and it seems a very shocking experience indeed that a man who has pioneered with respect to his point of view over the years would be taken from the public scene at such an early age.

I am sure all of us as fellow parliamentarians would want to express our gratitude for this life of public service and to express as well, on behalf of the government and the people of Ontario, the deep sense of loss that this untimely death records.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal Party would of course want to associate ourselves with the remarks of the leader of the New Democratic Party and with those just offered by the Deputy Premier. Certainly we were all shocked and saddened on Friday night to hear the news of the tragic death of the leader of the Alberta New Democratic Party and the Leader of the Opposition in that province.

The one comment I would like to add, because I think the leader of the New Democratic Party has spoken with great feeling about his personal relationship with the late Mr. Notley -- I do not believe I ever met the gentleman; I think I had the opportunity to be in his presence on one occasion when some of us as an Ontario delegation were in Edmonton some years ago -- is that when one looks at the career of Grant Notley, one must be impressed by the single-minded dedication he brought to his public and parliamentary responsibilities.

For a long time Grant Notley soldiered on in difficult circumstances in Alberta, facing monolithic opposition from the government. A lesser person, I think, might have given up a long time ago. Mr. Notley, as our friend the leader of the New Democratic Party has indicated, brought a level of intensity and commitment that sets a very high and good example not only to the rest of us, who must carry on public responsibilities in Alberta and elsewhere, but also to the community at large.

When one looks at the career of Mr. Notley and when one thinks about the adversity he faced, one must be very impressed by the very high standard of public service of which his tragically ended career is such a fine example.

On my behalf and on behalf of my colleagues I want to extend our very deepest sympathy to his wife, to his family and to the people of Alberta, who have truly lost a great soldier in politics and in parliament.

ORAL QUESTIONS

OTTAWA VACANCY RATE

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my first question will be to the member for Ottawa South, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, a man whom we in the eastern region hear has a lot on his mind these days.

What plans does the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the member for Ottawa South have to alleviate the critical housing shortage in the national capital region? The minister will know, both as minister and as local member, that the vacancy rate in Ottawa is among the worst in the country and the province. We have hundreds of people who require social housing on a long-term basis and who are standing in line nightly to gain admission to church basements and old police stations.

What does the minister propose to do in the here and now to redress the critical social housing crisis in his home city of Ottawa?

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am sure members will recall that during my estimates we went through a complete analysis of what we have provided, through both the provincial and the federal governments, in the way of publicly assisted housing units.

I discussed Ottawa and I indicated very clearly that under the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Housing Authority we have something better than 13,000 units that are now on a rent-geared-to-income basis. In the current year, additional stock will be added. This will come as a result of the allocations through my ministry and the federal government. We indicated that 200 of them would go directly to the private sector and take in units on a rent-geared-to-income basis. The member will recall the arguments I had with the mayor from that community.

Over and above that, there was a further allocation by the federal government directly to the municipality, through City Living in the municipality, of another 80-odd units, plus 25 we had given it as well, which is 105 units. In addition, I reported to this House that the firm by the name of Minto Construction in the city of Ottawa had built some units under the Canada rental supply program.

There was a great argument brewing at the time as to whether that firm was going to allocate any of its units under the Canada rental supply program to rent-geared-to-income. They believed they had made a special deal, and I will not go into all the details here today, but if the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) wishes them, I will be glad to speak to him later about it. In the last few weeks the federal government, Minto Construction and the government of Ontario have been able to resolve the problem.

They will now allocate over the next 12 months something in the range of 300 units from that firm alone to the rent-geared-to-income program. In addition to that, at this time we have units that will come on stream through the private nonprofit corporations and the co-ops which will allocate a percentage of their units to the rent supplement program.

I also call to the member's attention that back in the late part of August the previous federal government made an announcement that this province, in co-operation with the federal government, had brought the Canada-Ontario rental supply program into being. They had allocated 2,800 units for Ontario, for which we as a province will pick up 50 per cent of the cost, or about $19 million. One third of those units, when completed, will end up in the rental supply program on a rent-geared-to-income basis. That is the direct action we are attempting to take to resolve the problems not only in Ottawa but in other areas of the province.

Mr. Conway: I do not think anyone in Ottawa or in this place will disagree with the minister when he suggests the national and municipal governments have been very active in trying to deal with this critical situation in his home city and elsewhere in the province.

Surely he will agree that the principal difficulty it is our responsibility to meet here is the fact that the provincial government -- particularly the principal instrument in these matters for the provincial government, the Ontario Housing Corp -- has been virtually inert since the late 1970s. It's not good enough to suggest that somehow the municipal nonprofits or the national government are going to solve a problem in which the province has a significant role to play.

What does the minister intend to do specifically, as a member of the provincial government, to redress this very serious situation? In Ottawa we heard the other day that the four main hostels have a 90 per cent firm booking for the whole winter, with only 30 or 40 spaces available. That is before the worst of the crunch comes. What specific undertakings is the minister prepared to give, as a member of the provincial government, in this situation in Ottawa, this month and this winter?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We have accepted the position, in this province and in the other nine provinces, that the supply of housing is a federal-provincial program. In 1978 we entered into an agreement with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. for the provision of housing. Very clearly the statement in this agreement was that we would pay a portion of the costs at a date to be determined. That was very clear.

If we had taken the reverse position -- because we made a good deal with the federal government of the day and we are now criticized for it -- let us just remember the tax dollar we speak of is still coming from the Ontario taxpayer, whether it comes directly from his provincial taxes or through the federal taxes he happens to pay.

We made the agreement with the federal government. The province and the federal government are responsible for the operation of that whole program, not the municipality. There is no financial undertaking by the municipality whatsoever, and 100 per cent is underwritten by either the provincial or federal governments. The municipalities are the operators of the program under the allocation program, but it is underwritten entirely by the provincial and federal governments.

In answer to the question, this government, through the Canada rental supply program, the co-op program, the Ontario community housing assistance program, of which we foot 100 per cent of the cost -- that is the one with the co-ops and private nonprofits -- and through our participation of $19 million under the Canada-Ontario rental supply program, is trying to resolve the problem.

We believe at this time and we will continue to believe -- and I hope to have a meeting shortly with the new federal minister who reports for housing -- that we still have to resolve this problem on a co-operative basis, not singularly by the province itself or the federal government itself, but by working together to resolve it, and indeed having a third partner, the municipality, not from a financial point of view, but from an advisory point of view.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know there are people who this winter will again be sleeping in church basements in the shadow of the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa. The minister should know that is a disgrace for us as a province, as it is for us as a nation.

How can the minister justify having a provincial program that spends roughly two cents on the dollar, in terms of the federal-provincial contribution, to provide for municipal nonprofit and co-operative housing? Why does he not go to the national minister for housing, if he wants a national program, and indicate positively how much Ontario is prepared to invest in affordable housing for people in this province that will help to deal with the problem this winter, rather than have another winter when younger and older people are forced to live and sleep in basements instead of having proper roofs over their heads?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member has been in this House on the odd occasion and has perhaps read some of my ministry's estimates debates which clearly indicated our responsibilities in relation to the federal government.

I have listened to this garbled thing about how we spend two cents on the dollar on the nonprofit program, disregarding the more than 100,000 units we happen to own as taxpayers of this province, for which we support 50 per cent of the cost of operation. It is not two cents on the dollar; it is 50 per cent of the cost of operation. Clearly, our responsibilities have been lived up to.

I would like to take the member back to a statement I made in this House some months ago in relation to the agreement we signed with the federal government for the delivery of municipal nonprofit housing. I said I had offered to the former Liberal minister reporting for housing that we were prepared, as a province, to sit down with him and renegotiate the agreement if he so wished. I was waiting for him and his call to do so.

Mr. O'Neil: Why did you not handle it yourself?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Because it was their agreement. We honoured it fully and we said we were prepared as a government to sit down and reassess it with them and take a more active

part if they wished. However, we wanted the funding we were going to put in traded off against other extended programs in the provision of housing. It was not just a matter of absorbing the federal government's loss, but a matter of putting it back into the program to produce, effectively, housing for Ontario.

Mr. Conway: The minister will surely recall his statement during the estimates in June when he indicated that by the fall of this year he expected to be able to report to the House, and to the community beyond, new programs that he would work out with the federal people to deal with this critical situation.

Mindful of that commitment during the estimates debates to which he made earlier reference, that by this fall he expected new initiatives, can the minister now speak about that to me and to the hundreds and thousands of senior-citizen renters and low-income families in the national capital area who say, "What is Claude F. Bennett going to do for us now to make available new units in Ottawa for the winter of 1984-85?"

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I just went through a complete breakdown of some of the housing that will come on stream in the very near future. I went through the whole assessment of what we have in the rent-geared-to-income allocation. We have put 200 of them into the marketplace, renting from the free marketplace from private developers. We did not have to wait for a year or 18 months to get them built. We went directly to the opportunity of renting them from the private sector, which had them under development or construction at that time. That was for 200 units.

Over the ongoing period, there are units coming from the private nonprofits and co-ops, and there are the municipal nonprofits at the same time. It is not a matter of how many we can produce in any given day; it is a matter of programming it and doing it over a period of time.

2:20 p.m.

Let me suggest strongly to this House that this government, and I believe the people of this province, can take a great deal of credit for the programs put in place over the last 20 years. With 115,000 units, one in seven rental units in my city of Ottawa and one in seven units in Metropolitan Toronto is owned, rented or paid for by the provincial or federal taxpayers.

We continue to try to improve upon that program, but let me suggest very strongly we are not going to resolve the problem overnight. We are not.

I am going to suggest again to the member for Renfrew North that he can sit down with Mr. McKnight and he can talk about the programs he would like to see brought in.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There happens to have been a certain federal election that interfered with that program, but we would like to meet with the federal minister and resolve it with a new scheme.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE NORTHERN ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Sterling), my question must be directed to the Deputy Premier. It concerns the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment.

In the seven years and three months since the commission was struck by order in council in the summer of 1977, the people of Ontario have spent in excess of $10.5 million for it.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: Given that fact, can the Deputy Premier on behalf of the government, which continues to pay the bills for that dubious enterprise, stand in this House today and indicate when, if ever, the Legislature and the province can expect the final report of that $10.6-million Royal Commission on the Northern Environment?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I cannot provide the honourable member with any specific date. One surely cannot argue the effectiveness of the consultative process and the importance of the work done by the commission. No doubt in the fullness of time we will have the benefit of that very exhaustive study.

I will draw the concern of the member for Renfrew North to the attention of the ministers involved and perhaps we can have a more specific answer with respect to date after I have consulted with them.

Mr. Conway: As the government turns the screws on the hospital workers at Sensenbrenner Hospital, why does it continue to give this boondoggle an apparently endless rope to go around the northern part of the province spending million after million?

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: Is it not an admission of the government's absolute incompetence and stupidity that this $10.6-million enterprise continues, and seven years and three months to the day after its creation it cannot indicate to the province when in hell it is going to report and give some indication of the kind of value for money we have for the $10.6-million worth of investment?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The short answer to the specific question I heard would be no.

Second, if we are going to undertake a piece of work, we want to satisfy ourselves it is complete. We have to respect the judgement of the commissioner with respect to the completeness of his work.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the Deputy Premier answer two simple supplementary questions?

Mr. Speaker: Just one.

Mr. Foulds: Number one: Can the minister tell us why Commissioner Fahlgren seems to have such great difficulty putting his pen to paper and writing his final report? Can he tell us how much the government could have saved and developed the north by simply investing the $10.6 million in the north instead of in this fruitless, senseless and useless commission?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the record of this party in government over the years has not been to dismiss lightly the consultative process, but to ensure people have a full opportunity to make their views known. I do not think the honourable member can just arbitrarily dismiss the importance of that by throwing figures around. Surely he must agree we have a dedicated commissioner who takes his responsibility seriously.

Mr. Martel: How can the minister say that with a straight face?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We will have the commissioner's report when he feels he is able to complete it. With respect to a definite reply, as I have already indicated to my colleague of the official opposition, perhaps I can be a little more specific after I have consulted with the ministers responsible.

Mr. Conway: Is the Deputy Premier aware that if the money now spent on this dubious enterprise had been spent on the people who are being royally inquired into, the government of Ontario would have been able to make a one-time payment of $350 to each one of those people in northern Ontario?

Will the Deputy Premier, for once in his recent day, exercise a bit of political machismo and undertake to direct that commission to terminate its work and to report to this Legislature at the earliest opportunity?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I hope I have not heard the member suggest that a shortcut to consultation would be to buy people off in this very crass way. With respect to this matter, we are taking some time. We make no apology for the consultative approach. That is why we are here and the member will continue to be over there.

Mr. Foulds: He has stopped consulting. He stopped thinking and he stopped writing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour who is deep in conversation.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed please.

Mr. Rae: My question has to do with the report of Professor Gunderson on equal pay. With respect to the implementation of equal pay for work of equal value, which the minister was asked about over the weekend, his response was, and I hope he is not being quoted unfairly by the Toronto Sun, "...the idea of adding $3 billion to the total wage bill of Ontario employers at a time when Ontario's economic recovery is 'sputtering' causes him major concerns."

Why would it not have occurred to the minister to say that the fact that the women of Ontario are now underpaid by somewhere between $1 billion and $3 billion causes him major concern? Why would the problem of being underpaid and the evidence that there is systematic discrimination in the economy towards women not cause him concern at the present time, whether or not the economy is sputtering, as he so nicely puts it? Why is his focus not on what is happening, which is that women are subsidizing the economy as a result of the way they are being treated in the private and public sectors?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The member is involved in more press confrontations over the period of a week than I am over the period of a month.

Mr. Breaugh: There is a reason for that.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Certainly, there is a reason for it and I can understand the reason.

Mr. Kerrio: He wants a job in the United Nations.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Is that what he is angling for?

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not being critical. There are some people on this side, too, who search out a high profile. I am afraid my objective is the exact opposite. The member will appreciate that whenever one is confronted by the media, there are a lot of questions asked and a lot of answers given. The particular answer quoted in this

article is accurate. However, it is only one of several answers I gave to the reporter.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I do not know whether to ask whether the other answers were better or worse than the one the minister gave. It is difficult to know. The minister did not deny he stated that the recovery is "sputtering," which is nice to hear because it is in direct contradiction to all the bunk we have had from the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) over the last few months and --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: -- second, the minister is not denying his focus was not on the question of being underpaid.

The government has trumpeted Bill 141 as being equal pay legislation when we all know it is not. How does he feel about the fact that, in dealing with the legislation and the concepts that have been put forward by the government, Professor Gunderson says, "In fact, it is likely that at most 0.05 to 0.10 of the overall wage gap can be attributed to wage discrimination within narrowly defined occupations within the same establishment, the portion of the gap that conventional equal pay for equal work legislation can deal with"?

How does the minister feel about his government, which comes into this House with legislation that deals with 0.05 to 0.10 of the problem it says it is trying to deal with?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: In response to the first comment the leader of the New Democratic Party made concerning my comments about the sputtering, the recovery and so on, he has to bear in mind that in my ministry I have to deal with matters such as plant closures, extended labour disputes and so on, so I am not confronted day by day with all the positive stories that are happening around this province; I am occupied with the other side of the coin.

But positive things are happening and those things are being brought to the member's attention each day, as well as they should be, by the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) and by the Treasurer. My mandate is to look after some of the less encouraging things that are going on in this province.

The member referred to Bill 141. I have no hesitation whatsoever in repeating the phrase he used as an aside, and that is "staged progress." There is no doubt at all that we are heading in the right direction and that this will serve to provide stronger emphasis on equal pay for similar jobs. That is what we are striving towards. If the third party would permit us to get this through the Legislature, then I am sure it would make a significant impact on the overall problem we are confronted with.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the minister that he knows very well that Bill 141 will not bring about equal pay for work of equal value.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Mancini: We went through lengthy committee hearings and never did the minister say he was opposed to equal pay for work of equal value because of the cost to the economy. Never did he say that, and I am surprised he has been quoted as saying that now.

Why will he not encourage his government to take more direct action through legislation instead of continuing with his public relations programs, such as setting up a women's minister and then not doing anything for women? Why does he not take direct action and make amendments to Bill 141 so we can have equal pay for work of equal value here in this province?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I agree and disagree with the honourable member. I agree when he talks about the principle of equal value legislation. I agree totally. I was one of the ones in this House who voted for it on a private member's bill. Certainly, I agree with the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.

I totally disagree with the member when he starts talking about the lack of progress or the lack of significant effort that has been made by the Ontario Status of Women Council, which is under the leadership of one of the most respected parliamentarians in this country, my colleague the Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Welch). For the member opposite to suggest there has been no progress and no improvement or anything like that starts to get me rather angry.

Mr. Rae: Before the minister gets too angry in his praise for the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), I would just remind him that we heard today that the Deputy Premier thinks the Fahlgren commission is also making progress. That is staged progress, too, so I think we know where the Deputy Premier is coming from in his definition of "staged progress."

I am surprised at the answers the Minister of Labour has given today and I am surprised that he would not see the clear underlying message of the Gunderson report. Professor Gunderson says two things very clearly. If you want to deal with the problem of the unfairness in the wages that are being paid to women, two steps have to be taken. The first step is to have equal value legislation; and the second step is to deal with the problem of the segregation of women into job ghettos that are underpaid by having affirmative action programs in place.

Why does the minister not accept our amendments to Bill 141, which would do two very direct things: move on equal pay for work of equal value and move on affirmative action? Why not do that, since his own consultant has said those are the two steps that have to be taken if the government is going to tackle this problem of wage discrimination against women?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: With respect, I believe the study makes one important point. It makes several important points, but the one I would like to pass on today is that it points to the need to develop more precise estimates of both the direct and indirect costs of implementing equal value legislation and its associated administrative and regulatory costs.

Mr. Rae: The minister read that very well.

ENERGY CONSERVATION BUDGET

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Energy a question.

In 1979 the minister who appears for some reason to be such a centre of controversy today, the Deputy Premier, announced a dramatic new policy for the province called Energy Security for the Eighties: A Policy for Ontario.

This document set out many specific targets for increasing energy self-sufficiency. It talked about the two elements of conservation and development of indigenous energy resources. It said that renewable and recoverable energy was going to play a much greater role in the life of the province and that the government estimated with its efforts "by 1995 at least 15 per cent of Ontario's energy will be from renewable and recoverable resources." Those were among the things that were laid out in this document.

With the estimates that the minister is going to be tabling later this week and with a document he has put before his ministry that calls for a complete devastation of the budgets of his ministry devoted to energy conservation and to alternative and renewable energy, we can see that this policy, which was set out a short five years ago, is a complete and utter shambles; it has been totally destroyed.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: How does the minister explain this savage attack on renewable energy and on conservation, and how does he justify this kind of slashing in his budget at a time when these things need additional investment?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to those comments, particularly since the honourable member opposite unfortunately did not see fit to ask my predecessor this question. I think he would be very interested in participating in this discussion as well.

I expect that as a result of Mr. Howard's comments in the Globe and Mail the leader of the third party would no doubt have some interest in the whole concept of what the ministry is doing and how it is refocusing its efforts in the areas of conservation and renewable energy.

At a time when energy prices have been reasonably stable for some two years and when it is important for governments to exercise proper stewardship of the taxpayers' resources, I think the member would have to agree that it is the role of people like me, of the Deputy Minister of Energy and of those involved in that stewardship of the government's resources to make sure the money is spent properly and that it is focused in a direction in which we can get the greatest value.

2:40 p.m.

We are therefore reassessing all the programs within the ministry. We are looking at the direction in which the ministry is going in the light of a more stable energy environment, and we are trying to attach greater commercial value to the programs we have embarked on and the studies that have been done over the years.

Mr. Rae: The minister talks about a new focus for conservation of renewable energy. Is he denying there has been a cut of more than $3.5 million in the alternative and renewable energy budget for 1984-85? Is he denying there is a drop of $4.4 million in the energy conservation budget? What kind of new focus is the minister talking about? He is not talking about a focus. He is talking about a slash. He is talking about a cut.

Is the minister still committed to the figure of 15 per cent by 1995? If so, can he tell us how in the name of goodness we are going to get there when he is cutting off every chance we have of reaching that goal in terms of renewable energy?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The member asked me about the 15 per cent figure. I have to tell him quite frankly that within the structure of the ministry and within the work we have been doing in the renewable energy field, given the scenario of today's energy prices, we probably cannot achieve that 15 per cent figure.

The member has to realize that in 1979, when the document was tabled, we were looking at projected world oil prices in excess of $55 a barrel. Those prices now are at about US$28 and falling. Given that scenario, we have to appreciate and recognize the realities of today's situation. We are doing that. We are making those adjustments. We know that will make us a more effective and credible organization in the eyes of the public.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, would the minister give his assessment to the House as to what role his new deputy minister played in this rather far-reaching turnaround in the policy of the ministry, which was established by the Deputy Premier as well as by the minister himself? Is this just an effort by Duncan Allan to do for his present minister what he did for the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) when he was Minister of Agriculture and Food?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, who knows very well the competence, the creativity and the effectiveness of Mr. Allan as a deputy minister in the government of Ontario, that indeed he will be following the mandate we have constructed and developed within the ministry.

Mr. Rae: Ontario Hydro is spending $3.5 million on the "talking" furnace alone. The minister knows perfectly well that is roughly the same amount of money that has been cut out of the alternative and renewable energy budget.

How can we draw any other conclusion from the news today in terms of the slashes and the cuts in the Ministry of Energy than that the government has recognized that what the Deputy Premier was doing in 1979-80 was a public relations exercise, described in the ministry's own document of 1984 as "overbilling"? That is a euphemism for a public relations exercise of the first order. How can we come to any other conclusion?

The ministry has basically decided to get out of solar energy and all the other alternatives and to simply leave the field to the big oil companies, the big gas companies and Ontario Hydro. That is what the Ontario Tory party has done. It has abandoned all sense of regulation and of providing alternative and other sources of renewable energy for smaller businesses in Ontario. It is simply leaving the field wide open to big oil, big gas and big Hydro. That is the Ontario Tory party in a nutshell.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I hate to disillusion the leader of the third party, soon perhaps to be the Leader of the Opposition, but I have to tell him that the private sector has worked very diligently, and we have worked very diligently with it, to develop these alternatives. We have made more progress in Ontario in the area of solar technology than has any other province in Canada. Through Ontario Hydro, we have developed policies of cogeneration and wheeling power that are exemplary when compared to the record of any other utility in Canada.

I have to take exception when the member talks about us getting out of these areas of renewable energy. We are simply attaching to those technologies a commercial value that needs to be attached to them. If we do not attach that commercial value, those technologies will be living from government grants and government programs for ever.

ORGANIZED CRIME

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations having to do with organized crime.

I wonder whether the minister has read the copyright articles in the Windsor Star, beginning Friday, October 19, by Jim Phillips and Alan Abrams, that bring very serious charges to bear against decisions made by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. They indicate that licences were granted to criminals or people with criminal records who have come into this province and applied for licence transfers, which should not have been permitted under the regulation that states licences are not to be granted in circumstances where "the past conduct of the applicant affords reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty."

Is the minister aware of those charges? If so, will he give us an explanation, which he may have received by now from the chairman of the LCBO? If not, what undertaking will he make to inform himself of these important matters?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of those allegations, and I am not certain whether what the honourable member read to me were charges. The ordinary process that is carried out in the transfer of licences is an extensive one, which would cover many of the matters the member has outlined. Therefore, at this point I can only take the question as notice and say that I will report back.

Mr. Nixon: To assist the minister in his review, I bring to his attention that a licence was granted to a company in which one of the principal shareholders was a Peter Barth, described by the Windsor Star as kingpin of the $1-million nude French table-top dance industry in Quebec and Ontario and an associate of figures in organized crime, which is branching out into Windsor.

In this instance, one of Barth's colleagues and business partners is a Nick Vasilaros, who has the same sort of background. The LCBO recommended revoking his licence for a Peterborough nude dance club, but the request was overruled by the LCBO chairman.

These are matters that concern us, and when the minister sees the amount of material that the Windsor Star has collected as far as this allegation is concerned, I am sure he will agree that it requires a thorough investigation.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Again, all I can say is that I have no personal information about any of the matters referred to. If the member will be good enough to give me the material, I will have it photocopied and return it to him.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I wonder whether the minister is aware of a statement made by his colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) in a letter addressed to me; I believe the minister received a copy of it.

The Solicitor General says, "It is not thought that mandatory inquests into every work-place-related death will have the effect of reducing the number of these unfortunate cases, nor will it provide greater information for the workmen, or industry, in adopting procedures which could prevent such regrettable deaths in the future."

If the minister is aware of that statement, what is his position on it, considering he has stated in the past that he is in favour of mandatory inquests?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to waffle. I made the statement earlier that I recommend mandatory inquests. I have made a commitment in this House in that respect. I have made a commitment to the media in that respect. Why keep bringing it up with me? Why does the honourable member not take it up with the Solicitor General and ask him what his opinion is?

I support the position taken by the member, and I have supported it with the Solicitor General, but I also respect the Solicitor General's right to have an opinion of his own. I will continue to press him from my point of view, and I trust the member will continue to press him from his point of view. That is the way the system works.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: If the minister responsible for the occupational health and safety of workers in this province is taking the position, as he has again today, that he is in favour of mandatory inquests and he wants to press the Solicitor General on this matter, can he tell us when he anticipates that he, as a minister of the crown, will be able to persuade his colleague of the rightness of his position and the error in the Solicitor General's position? When can we expect a change in government policy rather than individual ministers' policies?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Again, I think the answer to that is to ask that question of the Solicitor General. He is an extremely competent minister of this crown. He has his right to have an opinion, just as I have my right and the member has his right. We happen to be two to one in this case; nevertheless, he is the one who has the final say. I will continue to press him from my end. I make that commitment.

HEARING FOR LIQUOR LICENCE

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding a recent hearing conducted by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario with respect to a licence for the Breslau Hotel. The minister may know, and I will remind him, there have been various acts of violence and assault, one resulting in death, at the hotel within the past few years. The problem is that at the licence hearing, counsel for the LCBO neglected to bring any of this evidence to the tribunal's attention, with the result that the licence was again renewed.

Must I remind the minister that there is a clear duty on the part of the agent of the crown to present all the evidence that bears on a matter? Surely he remembers the case not very long ago when the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) had a new hearing because a part-time crown attorney neglected to present the full case. Does the minister not share the concern when such a failure of duty occurs within his own ministry?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the slightest reason to doubt that the material the honourable member has read to me is accurate, but out of old-fashioned habits I have developed, I would like to take the opportunity to review the facts and the allegations he has made before commenting on the question he has asked.

Mr. Epp: I remind the minister that he has had a considerable number of letters on this matter. If he checks with his ministry staff, he will find they have a lot of information already on record.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I cannot bring Peterborough into this particular matter, but in view of all the circumstances, is the minister prepared to look sympathetically at the evidence in the case, since a number of people have indicated that all the evidence did not come forth? Will he look at it sympathetically from the standpoint of having a new hearing and permitting a third party to participate so that all the evidence can come forth rather than have the kind of hearing that occurred only a few months ago at which it is quite obvious all the evidence was not brought forth?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Again without doubting the accuracy of what the member has reported, I would like to take the liberty, out of old-fashioned habits, of reviewing the accuracy and completeness of the allegations that have been made against many parties. Second --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: What is that again? The member was there last week at that place and he did what?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: What did the member do there last week? I could not hear --

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr. Samis: You wiped him out. Well done, Mr. Speaker.

ASSOCIATION LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, this is another question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the strike by the employees of the Cornwall District Association for Mentally Retarded now has gone into its fifth week, can the minister inform the House what his ministry is doing to help resolve that dispute?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the work stoppage, the labour dispute, there. I am also aware --

Mr. Martel: It is a management dispute.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Labour-management dispute or management-labour dispute, whichever way the honourable member prefers it.

Mr. Martel: I prefer it that way.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: All right. The management-labour dispute is in its fifth week. I am not right up to date as of today -- I was last week -- with the mediation efforts. I will make a point of checking that out and will respond personally to the member.

I do know that there have been mediation efforts made by our ministry and that our mediators continue to be available to the parties concerned. I appreciate the question from the member. Because it is a serious situation and it creates the loss of a valuable service to the community of Cornwall, it is imperative that this matter be brought to a successful resolution just as soon as possible.

Mr. Samis: In view of the fact that this strike is rather different from the normal industrial or private sector strike -- in fact, it is rather different from the normal dispute in the educational institutions -- and in view of the fact that apparently only $6,600 seems to divide the two sides from an actual settlement, and recognizing the mediation that his ministry is engaged in, will the minister undertake personally to use the full force of his office to try to get the two sides back to the bargaining table and to try to find a settlement of this dispute, because of the particular nature of the strike?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I think I have always responded positively any time a similar type of question has been asked of me, with one reservation. The member touched on that in his question when he said each dispute is somewhat unique in itself. There are times when one can get involved and there are other times when it would be counterproductive to do so.

But I do commit myself to sitting down with my senior officials, such as the assistant deputy minister for industrial relations and the director of our mediation and conciliation branch, reviewing all the circumstances and deciding whether it would be appropriate to intervene personally. I will get back to the member with that information as soon as I can.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As the minister is aware, the wine industry in Ontario is in considerable trouble and probably requires immediate action on the part of the Ontario government to rectify its situation.

Will the minister indicate whether he is prepared to implement the recommendations included in what was referred to in a headline in the St. Catharines Standard as a secret proposal to the Ontario government, which would reduce the Liquor Control Board of Ontario markup on the price of local wines to one per cent from 58 per cent and reduce the imported wine markup to 66 per cent from 123 per cent, while allowing a flat-rate distribution fee of $12 a case to cover LCBO costs and profits?

The minister will understand that it is necessary to move both because of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. That is why this recommendation is made. Is he prepared to act immediately upon that proposal so he can assist the wine industry, which is in considerable trouble?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is of interest that the honourable member is aware of only one of a variety of proposals that have taken place and are under way with respect to Ontario's wine industry, which is part of our food land policy for the great Niagara Peninsula.

I believe the member comes from that very area and, therefore, he would have a particular interest in it. The Liquor Control Board of Ontario, as he knows, has sponsored in this year of our bicentennial a special bicentennial series of displays of Ontario wines to bring those wines to the attention of Ontarians.

Mr. Sweeney: What has that got to do with production costs?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member is talking about efforts to assist the industry. If he does not think a 200 per cent increase in the sale of Ontario wines from Niagara is important, let him stand up and say so and tell us to stop selling it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: We think it is important to do those things.

Mr. Bradley: I will withhold my excitement over the bicentennial wines.

Mr. O'Neil: I am sure we will have another one next year.

Mr. Bradley: We will save it for the real bicentennial in 1991.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Conway: The inventory must be down after the Queen's dinner.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

3 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: In view of the fact that Mr. Donald Ziraldo, who is president of Inniskillin Wines, was quoted as saying, "We are getting to the point where we are very pessimistic and frustrated," and in view of the difficulty experienced by the wine industry in terms of layoffs and that the markets for the grape growers is a very significant problem, would the minister not agree with me that it is important to act immediately instead of waiting for yet another of the task force reports his government seems to have going at all times?

Does he not agree that their frustration is justified and that his immediate action is necessary to help not only those in the Niagara Peninsula but also those across Ontario who are interested in a healthy wine industry?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think this is one of those issues that I sense is not being looked upon in a political way by the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley). I sense he shared the same goals this government shared in 1981 when it introduced the 65 cents handling charge on wine.

Although I did not hear his sounds of regret when circumstances came about that required the withdrawal of that 65-cent handling charge because of threats of retaliation from the Americans to the south, I know that had he known about it he would have spoken up about it and let his constituents in the Niagara Peninsula know that he wanted anything done that could be done to preserve the interest of that food land dedicated area.

We continue to explore options that are feasible within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and other arrangements that are in place. We are unrelenting in those and will continue to pursue avenues that will help the wine industry of that part of the province to which the honourable member is so dedicated, but to which he seems to give so little praise for the efforts we have made to date. With or without his assistance -- and I suspect with it -- we will carry on our endeavours to preserve Niagara food land and its great wine growing industry.

ARBITRATION AWARD

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet. My question arises out of the arbitration award in the recent decision of the board of arbitration under the chairmanship of David H. Kates. What exactly is the minister's position on the question of the comparability of pay scales for corrections officers and Ontario Provincial Police constables?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows, a report that was done some years ago, I believe for the government, said we should move towards comparability between correctional officers and the OPP. There has been some gradual movement in that direction in awards that were agreed to by the government in years past.

I do not have any particular position on the issue and it is not an issue which I personally am involved with at arbitration. However, I think there has been a gradual movement towards parity.

Mr. Renwick: The minister is no doubt referring to the Shapiro report and to the Kruger award which was made a couple of years ago. In the Kruger award it was stated, "We note that responsible officials of the Ontario government, including the current Minister of Correctional Services and his predecessor have accepted the legitimacy of such a link and have indicated support for narrowing the wage gap between the two groups.

Yet in the arbitration award to which I refer, the following statement appears: "Notwithstanding the absence of any disavowal since the Kruger award of the past statements made in support of the comparability position by responsible officials of the Ontario government, the employer before this board has contested the validity of any such wage link. Indeed, the employer's representatives appeared to be highly critical of the pronounced legitimacy of the wage link between the two groups as expressed in the Kruger award and the antecedent studies, particularly the Shapiro report."

Is the minister going to pay attention to what the chairman of the arbitration board said when he urged the parties to resolve this pressing issue of comparability on their own, during the course of their next negotiations?

Hon. Mr. McCague: It will certainly be one of the many things taken into account when negotiations resume next year.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, surely we can expect an opinion from the Chairman of Management Board; he is part of the government.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Mancini: Is the minister in favour of, or against, having the wages of the corrections officers become comparable to the wages of the provincial police; yes or no?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member heard what I said initially. Yes, I am a member of the government. I am also a member of the cabinet. He asked for my personal opinion. I will give him the opinion of cabinet, which he has heard.

STAFFING OF REST HOMES

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding the reporting of Workers' Compensation Board claims. It will require a little bit of background and I would appreciate if you would let me give that background.

Two weeks ago yesterday, a Vietnamese woman employed at the University Rest Home in Windsor was savagely beaten by a young patient in the home. She sustained numerous bruises to many parts of her body, a broken right cheekbone and some possible ligament damage to her left wrist. The incident occurred at 6:30 in the evening with two staff on duty in a home with more than 100 patients.

The beating, on the fourth floor of the building, continued for a time until the woman escaped and managed to reach the ground floor, where she was taken by ambulance to hospital. I am going to send the minister a complete

summary of this matter so that he may be aware of it.

Eight days later we called the owner, George Leferman, and inquired why no report of the incident had been filed with the Workers' Compensation Board. We were told he had not sent anything to the board because he was "waiting to see what she is going to do before we do anything." He noted this woman had been discharged from hospital but had not returned to work, intimating that she was malingering.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wrye: Will the minister ascertain whether full and proper reporting of this claim has now been made? Will he report what action the board is prepared to take to ensure that this employer is charged under the act? Finally, how much of this kind of attitude is he prepared to accept before he gets tough with employers who flagrantly violate the Workers' Compensation Act of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to look into the matter. I will report back personally to the honourable member and respond directly to each of the three questions he has raised.

Mr. Wrye: I am sure the minister knows he is empowered under

section 101 of the act to enter this rest home to ascertain, quoting from the section, "whether all proper precautions are taken for the prevention of accidents to the employees employed in or about the establishment or premises."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wrye: Given this, I have three questions for the minister. Will he undertake such an investigation to find out whether the lack of staff in this facility placed the staff at risk and precipitated this incident? Can he inform the House whether it is the policy of the board to investigate whether other incidents in facilities such as these have gone unreported? Will he investigate whether this rest home has been properly reporting such incidents over time?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I do not say this in any flippant manner whatever, because I respect the member and the seriousness of the questions he has asked. I will add those questions to the three he asked previously and will respond to him in all cases.

PETITIONS

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 154 students in the colleges.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Having paid for a quality education through many personal sacrifices, we demand your attention so that our studies will not be interrupted. We are unable to function on our own in much of the learning situations for specific courses without the help of a teacher or an instructor.

"This loss of classroom hours is grossly unfair. Many of us have given up full-time jobs, taken out loans to cover costs and in general have disrupted our family lives to attain a better education.

"To extend our classroom hours into holiday time or summer would mean additional strain in regards to care and costs for our children in day school at present. In addition, there would be a lot of upheaval for students since their summer plans include jobs that will pay for next year's fees and expenses.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, strongly protest your decision to allow the teachers and instructors associated with this and similar colleges across Ontario to go out on strike as of October 17, 1984.

"We are enrolled in these colleges to gain valuable knowledge to aid us in our search for employment. To disrupt our studies at this time would adversely effect our ability to finish and graduate from these courses. We feel that any delay in our graduation would mean looking for a job at a very inopportune time and greatly reduce our chances of finding any employment in our chosen field."

It is signed by 62 students from Fanshawe College.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I would be remiss if I were not to thank the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) for allocating $250,000 for a health study in the Niagara Peninsula after the report from the federal government.

I hope it is at the insistence of the member for --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is hardly a point of privilege. You may send the minister a letter and express your thanks in that manner.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the students at the Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology. It states:

"All our futures depend on the preservation of Ontario's education system. We, the students of Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology, feel strongly that both parties return to the bargaining table and reach an equitable solution."

It is signed by 881 students at Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman, when we finished on Friday I had put a few questions to the minister, questions that had been on the Orders and Notices, and he indicated he would provide answers today. I wonder if I might impose on him for a moment or two to allow my colleague the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) to pose a few questions on the agricultural theme. My colleague has another commitment, and certainly I do not mind stepping aside to give him the opportunity to present his case if we could come back to my questions later.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Certainly.

Mr. Chairman: Go ahead.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, I have not had as much of an opportunity as I would have liked to sit in on the meetings considering the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, but I do not believe there has been a great deal of discussion about the state of the agricultural industry in northern Ontario and the lack of government support towards that most important industry in northern Ontario and its potential.

The points I want to raise this afternoon have to do with the markets for the products that are grown in northern Ontario. I also want to mention the concerns the farmers have with respect to the crop insurance program as it applies to them in northern Ontario.

Mr. Stokes: Can we get a little order over there, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: I wonder if those members leaving the chamber could do so quietly so the debate could continue uninterrupted.

Mr. Riddell: Last, I want to mention a little bit about the agricultural and rural development agreement program and the concerns that the farmers have about the intention of the government towards the continuation of the ARDA program in northern Ontario.

I have been doing a bit of travelling in northern Ontario and talking to the farmers at their request. I have also been travelling with the task force that was set up by my leader to look into the concerns of rural municipalities throughout Ontario. We have spent quite a bit of time in northern Ontario with that task force listening to many presentations from people from all walks of life.

Inevitably we will always get some kind of presentation from the farm communities throughout northern Ontario, and that is why I want to spend a little time this afternoon talking about their concerns.

The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) will no doubt recall a private member's bill that was introduced by one of his colleagues and one of the possible candidates in the upcoming leadership race. I am referring to the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), who back in 1977 introduced a bill to amend the Ontario Food Terminal Act.

The purpose of that bill was, first, to expand the objects of the Ontario Food Terminal Board to include the establishment of a branch food terminal in the district of Cochrane and, second, to forbid new or expanded wholesale fresh produce operations in the district of Cochrane. Without these two substantive amendments to the Ontario Food Terminal Act it would be impossible for the food terminal to expand to northern Ontario.

The bill arose from concerns expressed by the producers, wholesalers and consumers of Cochrane South and, indeed, of all northern Ontario about the state of the agriculture industry generally and of the fresh produce sector of it, specifically throughout northern Ontario.

Those concerns remain with the farmers. I have in my hand a brief that was presented to our task force from the East Nipissing and Parry Sound Federation of Agriculture, and I will quote a few sentences as they appear in this brief: "A provincial program to establish local markets and abattoirs to supply urban areas would have merit in the north, where transportation costs are becoming a serious burden. The whole question of marketing our product is one we have sadly neglected."

Members can see that the same situation occurs in northern Ontario now as it did at the time the member for Cochrane South introduced his bill.

The Minister of Northern Affairs knows full well that the vast majority of the arable land in northeastern Ontario is located in the great Cochrane clay belt and in the vicinity of Timmins to the extent of 2.2 million acres and in the little clay belt in the northern end of the district of Timiskaming to the extent of 391,000 acres.

3:20 p.m.

By arable land I mean class 2 and class 3 soils as defined by the federal Department of Agriculture or high soil capability as defined by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Of the total of 2.7 million acres of high quality arable land in northeastern Ontario as a whole, a mere 918,000 acres, or one third, is included in census farms. Further, only 382,575 of those acres comprise improved farm land. Of that improved farm land, only on 252,500 acres were crops of some kind being grown. That was done on 2,840 census farms through which 13,347 people derive direct income.

That base must serve and be compared with approximately 559,850 people in the northeastern Ontario market area at present. That population is projected at 779,000 by the year 2001. Note that I have not included the population of northwestern Quebec, which is almost totally served through Ontario with respect to food products.

Clearly, northeastern Ontario's vast agricultural potential is far from being fully utilized. Despite the high-capability land and the large size of farms in northern Ontario, economic output is low. Fifty-two per cent of all census farms have gross annual proceeds of less than $2,500 and in some districts, including the district of Cochrane, the average farm income for tax purposes is negative.

It is also clear that farm incomes in northeastern Ontario are declining along with farm population, the number of farms and the amount of improved agricultural land. Quite simply, agricultural land in northeastern Ontario is going out of production.

For example, farm acreage in the district of Cochrane declined by 46 per cent from 1961 to 1971 -- and is still declining -- and by 25 per cent for the whole of northeastern Ontario. In the district of Cochrane, the number of farms declined from 900 in 1961 to 340 in 1971 -- and it is still declining -- and from 5,000 in 1958 to 2,489 for the same time frame in all northeastern Ontario, and the number of farms is still declining.

A number of reasons have been given for the decline. The consensus appears to be a combination of more remunerative employment opportunities outside agriculture, high transportation costs to market, fluctuating market demands, competing land uses, lack of storage and marketing facilities, and climate.

A farmer in northeastern Ontario generally lacks access to local markets because of the bulk-buying practices of chain stores. He must ship his produce south to markets, including the Ontario Food Terminal in Toronto, or sell it at discount to a wholesaler to encourage pickup in the north. It is thus the producer who must bear the transportation cost in order to be competitive with established bulk wholesale prices. That same product shipped south may be marketed here in Toronto and shipped right back up north to wholesalers and retailers there.

There is no question that there is a vast transportation system handling fresh produce and potatoes as well as dry groceries throughout northern Ontario, but as the minister well knows, the transportation costs are extremely high. One of the reasons they are high is the distances. The other is that the transport carriers have a payload only one way, taking the food produce from southern Ontario up to the north.

I could talk extensively about the transportation system, but suffice it to say that it is a very costly system in northern Ontario, which expresses the real need for better markets so farmers can grow the produce in northern Ontario, which they certainly have the potential to do, and find markets right there in the north.

It is rather ridiculous that the hogs produced in northern Ontario are transported down to the south, killed and slaughtered here, and then the carcasses are sent back up to northern Ontario to feed consumers there. The same thing can be said for beef cattle. They lack slaughtering facilities in northern Ontario.

Farmers have been telling me that they badly need abattoirs in northern Ontario so they can have their own cattle killed in the north and then move the carcasses to the various retail outlets to meet the consumption in northern Ontario. It seems ridiculous that cattle and hogs are shipped to the south and slaughtered here and that the carcasses are then sent back to northern Ontario. This is a real concern the farmers have.

Northern Ontario, in spite of its vast agricultural potential, is not meeting its own market needs even in those agricultural products in which it excels; so there is a tremendous potential in northern Ontario if only it had the outlets.

Wholesalers in northeastern Ontario purchase fresh produce from southern Ontario, but because many are not licensed public commercial carriers, they do not have full or even partial truckloads heading south. In other words, their transportation systems are inefficient.

For many grocery products, the consumers of northeastern Ontario pay prices comparable to those in southern Ontario, with five to eight per cent of the purchase price built in for transportation costs. However, on many other items northeastern Ontario consumers pay far more.

The construction of a food terminal by the government with space leased to the wholesalers would provide accessible market facilities for producers. It would reduce transportation costs to producers in obtaining access to markets. Products could be transferred between terminals by the Ontario Food Terminal Board according to its present mandate.

With a steady supply at competitive prices because of the open market system, local producers could begin to supply the local market. Wholesalers and retailers could still order in bulk and split the source of their orders. In other words, an order could be placed in Toronto for both the southern Ontario market and the northeastern Ontario market and shipments could be made to the northeastern Ontario market through the northern food terminal.

Storage facilities could be constructed by the food terminal board or by co-operatives of producers or wholesalers. This would help to revitalize the agriculture industry in northern Ontario. It would reduce costly inefficiencies in the transportation practices of wholesalers and retailers in northeastern Ontario. This should have the effect, it is hoped, of decreasing some food prices to the consumers of northeastern Ontario.

In addition, northern Ontario farmers could market a larger variety of crops such as potatoes, cabbages, beets, onions, turnips and carrots. I would even include tomatoes, since I did talk to a farmer in northern Ontario who indicated he could grow tomatoes just as well as they can grow them in southern Ontario.

As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me correctly, he was producing tomatoes in the vicinity of one of the large retail outlets in northern Ontario; yet that retail outlet refused to accept his tomatoes. I think the reason was that he could not produce a sufficient quantity of tomatoes to meet the demand, so it preferred to deal with somebody from southern Ontario who could produce sufficient quantities. The argument did not seem to hold much water as far as I was concerned, but here was a chap in northern Ontario who could produce tomatoes and who wanted to produce them, but who did not have the markets.

This is the reason I am standing here today. I am trying to encourage the Minister of Northern Affairs to work with those farmers to see if there could not be some public funding of possible markets so the farming industry could take off in northern Ontario and produce the crops it certainly has the capability of producing.

Mr. Stokes: Satisfying the local market.

Mr. Riddell: Satisfying the local market, as one of our good northern members has just indicated.

Mushrooms could also be grown in northern Ontario without any problem. This type of agricultural development could create jobs in northern Ontario -- jobs in agriculture, in processing plants, in freezing plants and in agricultural service industries.

3:30 p.m.

Granted, the establishment of a food terminal, or a better kind of marketing system in northern Ontario, would not solve all the problems of the agriculture industry in the north, but it would certainly go a long way to helping out.

Mr. Stokes: Cutting down on transportation costs.

Mr. Riddell: Cutting down on transportation costs, as the member for Lake Nipigon says. I appreciate that help because he knows the situation in northern Ontario well, probably better than I do.

We have to consider changing policies on disposition or use of arable land by the crown. I am going to get into the agricultural and rural development agreement program in a few minutes. We need agricultural research and moneys for the purchase of modern machinery.

We need to examine the economies of farm size. We need storage facilities, but we also need, first and foremost, a marketing structure and strategy for agricultural food products in northern Ontario, thereby creating the necessary incentive to revitalize the agricultural industry.

I give the member for Cochrane South a lot of credit for introducing his bill. I believe it received unanimous support on all sides of the House, but for some reason the bill went on the back burner and nothing has been done.

Mr. Stokes: He became a cabinet minister and did not want to rock the boat.

Mr. Riddell: Nothing has been done about improving the markets in northern Ontario since he left his position in the House as a backbencher and became a cabinet minister and is now the Minister of Natural Resources.

I hope the Minister of Northern Affairs will take my comments into consideration. I am looking forward to his response about the possible development of markets in the north. Let us get the agricultural industry booming in the north again. As the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) has said, the potential for agriculture is in the east and the north.

It seems to me the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program was going to devote several million dollars towards the development of agricultural land in eastern and northern Ontario. I have not seen a great deal of that money spent. How much was it?

Mr. Stokes: Ten million dollars.

Mr. Riddell: My friend tells me the BILD fund was supposed to provide $10 million for the development of agriculture in northern and eastern Ontario. I think it has fallen short of even paying out one tenth of that amount of money. It will be interesting to get the correct figures from the Minister of Northern Affairs, if he has a chance to talk to the Minister of Agriculture and Food some time. So much for markets in the north.

One of the real concerns of the farmers in northern Ontario is the crop insurance program. Everywhere we go throughout the north, the farmers say the crop insurance program, as it applies to them, is practically useless. Many of them do not even enter the program or, if they were members of the program at one time, they have certainly withdrawn from any involvement they have had.

I find it somewhat ironic that there is no northern representative on the Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario. Does that not speak about the commitment of this government towards the agricultural industry in the north? The farmers in northern Ontario feel this is an important requirement in view of the fact that the problems there are different.

Those farmers feel that having a northern representative on the crop insurance commission is an important requirement in view of the fact that the problems in the north are different from the problems in the rest of the province. They would like to have someone on this commission who understands their problems.

The major problem they are having concerns the hay and pasture insurance program. The government uses a simulated yield based on a computer program, and it is my understanding that this computer program has been programmed for southern Ontario conditions. It is based on 30 inches of soil and it is also based on land that is tile-drained.

These are conditions that do not readily apply to northern Ontario. In many cases in the north, one will be lucky to have six or 12 inches over bedrock. The computer module is based on 30 inches of soil, which we have in southern Ontario. Not much of the land in northern Ontario is tiled at this time.

I know many of our contractors from southern Ontario are in the north tiling more of that land recognizing the potential that tiled land has to produce. The program is based on well-drained land and, as I indicated before, not much of the land in the north is well drained.

Last year the theoretical yield on the computer program was forecast to be cut on June 30. In actual fact, it was cut on June 15 in the majority of the cases in the north and the farmers had a bad crop year. It was down by one third of their average crop. However, there was no payout.

In 1982 there was a payout, but there was none in 1983 even though the farmers had a worse harvest in that year. The computer module does not take into consideration variable climatic conditions. It does not examine individual farms, which may have different growing conditions from farms some 30 miles away. Some form of individual adjustment is required as far as the farmers in the north are concerned.

The farmers in the north would also like to have more emphasis put on the second cut versus the first cut of hay. Currently, 75 per cent of the harvest is attributed to the first cut and 25 per cent to the second cut. They would like to have that 25 per cent figure raised.

The insurance program for small grains, barley and oats is also of some concern to beginning farmers. In the first year a beginning farmer's coverage is limited to 67 per cent of the average yield. This yield is about 1,200 to 1,300 pounds per acre. The farmers feel this figure is much too low in view of the fact that a beginning farmer is most vulnerable in that first year or two. Much more flexibility is needed in the crop insurance programs as far as those farmers are concerned.

While input costs for the farmers have increased dramatically, the payouts under crop insurance have remained the same as they were a few years ago. It does not seem to me that the crop insurance program is keeping in step with what is happening in the agricultural industry and the prices that are being paid for the commodities grown and, also, the high input cost, the ever-increasing input costs that farmers are facing.

I would hope the Minister of Northern Affairs would take into consideration the very real concerns that farmers in northern Ontario have with the crop insurance program because they honestly feel, the way the program is at the present time, it is of very little use to them. Many farmers in the north will not have anything to do with the crop insurance program, but if it was ever revised and brought up to date to meet the conditions in the north, then one would see many of the farmers jump into the program.

Lastly, I want to talk about the agricultural and rural development agreement in the north. I firmly believe that it is the Minister of Agriculture and Food's intention to do away with the ARDA program; yet the farmers in the north tell me they consider it to be a most worthwhile program and they would like to see it continue.

3:40 p.m.

Farmers in northern Ontario are not making all that much money farming. They cannot afford to go out and buy land, but to become more efficient they have to expand. That was one of the reasons the ARDA program was established in the first place: to give farmers a chance to expand their farming operations. The land was leased to farmers for a period of years, and they were given the option of buying that land for the price the government originally paid for it.

It has been a good program; it was a program that was actually province-wide at one time. I know that many farmers in southern Ontario made use of it. Much of the land the government bought was turned into community pastures and certainly helped many of the farmers in what I consider to be the more northerly parts of southern Ontario, in the Huron, Bruce and Grey county areas. A lot of farmers in the more northerly part of southern Ontario would say it was unfortunate the government saw fit to curtail that program for those farmers.

While the program is ongoing in northern Ontario, the farmers understand the minister's intention is to curtail the program and they do not know where they stand. They do not know whether they are going to be able to continue to lease that land next year. The minister has not indicated his intentions with respect to this ARDA land and so the farmers cannot make any long-range plans. They do not know whether they are going to have the use of that land in the future.

When I posed the question to the minister in April 1984, I mentioned that some 400 farmers in the province are leasing land from the government under the ARDA program, which was originally developed to help farmers in areas of low productivity, predominantly in northern and eastern Ontario.

I stated that these farmers had not yet been notified by the minister of the lease rate for this year or even whether the government planned to continue this program, even though these farmers had to make decisions with respect to planting and fertilizer application. I urged the minister to tell these farmers that the ARDA program would be continued, and in view of the critical situation facing them, that the leases would be renewed at their original rates in the hope that it would give those farmers a small break.

As a supplementary, I said to the minister: "What are we to tell the farmers? I just spent a lot of last week in northern Ontario. The farmers do not know what to do." I asked him his intentions and whether these farmers could rely on having that land for the next five or even 10 years.

I made reference to one farmer, Don Stymiest, a beef farmer in Powassan, who applied to the ministry for the extension of his ARDA lease last October and had absolutely no reply up to that time. I was talking to the farmer in April and he still had no reply from the minister, even though he had to be making decisions for this crop year.

The value of his 100 workable acres of ARDA land was doubled by the ministry five years ago from $11,000 to $22,000 and he has now heard that the rate of lease will be increased to one percentage point below the Farm Credit Corp. rate. I believe at that time the Farm Credit Corp. rate was 14 5/8 per cent; so he was looking at an increase in the rate of interest on the market value of that land to 13 5/8 per cent. That meant he would be paying some $3,000 plus taxes and insurance, which would be unaffordable for him and, as far as I am concerned, an exorbitant price to be paying for marginal land in the north.

I asked the minister what help he would be providing to this farmer and hundreds like him, who are facing a financial crisis in their industry.

The minister responded that he was well aware of the factors I mentioned. He had been up north several times recently. He did not notice anybody up there planting yet, nor were they likely to be planting for a while.

Because of his lack of agricultural experience, the minister fails to understand that a farmer does not jump on his tractor, pull the seed drill out and put in the seed. He has to plan. The chances are he starts his planning the fall before. He has to plan to buy his fertilizer, his seed and the chemicals to put on that crop. He gets all his planning done. Then, when the planting season comes, he is prepared to go out in the field to plant the crop.

However, the minister said he was up north and he did not see any planting being done at the time. That is the kind of answer to our questions that somewhat annoys us. Again, as I say, it is simply due to a lack of agricultural knowledge and experience on the part of the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

I could make a speech on this business of a government appointing someone as Minister of Agriculture and Food who has no actual experience and who has very little knowledge of the business of farming. That type of an answer certainly showed his inexperience and lack of knowledge.

The minister said: "I can assure the member we are well aware of the pressures of time. We will make a decision in a timely fashion and convey the decision to the farmers involved." Here is the farmer to whom I was referring, and hundreds like him, wanting to know whether they are going to have this land from ARDA for another year because they have to order seed, fertilizer and chemicals. The minister says, "We will make the decision in the fullness of time."

The minister went on to say: "I remind the member there are and have been various points where the farmers could have exercised the option to buy the property. I hope the member was not trying to imply in his question that they have been denied the right to buy the property, because that is not the case."

I never indicated they did not have the right to buy the property. We all know the ARDA program was set up on the basis that a farmer could buy that land at the price the government paid for it any time the farmer felt he was able to afford it. I think he was given up to 10 years to purchase the land.

Checking further into this ARDA program as it applies to northern Ontario, I understand the government has decided to continue the program at the same rate of interest as applied last year, but for another year only. I have no idea when it made this decision.

Does this tell the farmers in northern Ontario that the minister definitely intends to curtail the ARDA program next year? Or does it mean they have the good fortune of being able to get that land again this year for the same rate of interest, but maybe next year the land will be available or it may not be? Maybe the interest rate will go up or maybe the land values are going to go up, which means they are going to be paying far more for the use of that land.

3:50 p.m.

Why does the minister feel he has to keep those farmers in northern Ontario guessing? Why can he not tell them, "We are going to definitely continue the program," or "We are going to definitely curtail the program"? I do not know why he cannot make a decision. Why do the farmers always have to be wondering: "What feed do I buy for next year? What fertilizer? What chemicals? What is my next year's program? The minister will not tell me whether I am going to have the use of this land."

The Minister of Northern Affairs should give us a definite answer so the farmers in northern Ontario can start to plan now for their production next year. It is imperative that the minister tell the farmers whether they can expect to have that land next year so they can go ahead and plan on that basis.

Those are the points I wanted to make. I believe there is tremendous potential for the agricultural industry in northern Ontario, certainly when I see what is happening in southern Ontario and especially if Brampton is able to annex the 7,000 acres it wants to take out of agricultural production and zone for development purposes. I am going to be making a presentation before the Ontario Municipal Board about that. I spent considerable time last year touring the land in the Brampton area. It is a real crime that this government would allow 7,000 acres of that high-quality land to be taken out of production.

If it is the government's intention to allow southern Ontario to be taken out of agriculture and put into urban or industrial development; if that is this government's philosophy on the preservation of agricultural land, it may well be that we are going to have to look to eastern and northern Ontario for the production of the food goods we consume in Ontario.

These are concerns that I think the Minister of Northern Affairs should be addressing right away. He should not keep the farmers guessing whether they can continue in business, whether they are going to have markets for the products they are quite capable of growing in the north, whether they are going to have suitable crop insurance to protect them in cases of adverse weather conditions and other freaks of nature and whether they are going to have the use of crown land to farm next year, the year after or 10 years down the road.

In his response, I sincerely hope the Minister of Northern Affairs will tell us what he sees for the agricultural industry in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can indicate my pleasure in having the member for Huron-Middlesex make a contribution to the examination of my ministry's estimates, particularly in relation to farming, because my ministry has identified farming as an area we can and should expand in northern Ontario. Not only have we identified the need and the potential, but we have also reacted accordingly.

Perhaps I can read into the record the overview we have in our ministry with respect to agriculture in northern Ontario and the strategic direction we are moving in.

The overview is as follows:

"There are currently in excess of 3,500 farms in northern Ontario on 1.3 million acres of cultivated farm land. The gross value of agricultural production sold exceeds about $8.6 million, representing close to two per cent of the province's total.

"In the document entitled Building Ontario in the 1980s, the government of Ontario stated its views on agricultural development in the north as follows: 'In the more distant future, the province will be looking to northern Ontario, particularly the Cochrane clay belt, to expand its food production.'

"Northern Ontario has many agricultural strengths. Conditions in the north for growing canola, oats, barley and forage are felt to be at least equal to the prairie provinces in western Canada. Agricultural development in northern Ontario is expected to be guided by local market forces and the production advantages it enjoys.

"Because of the quality forage and cereals the north can grow, the development would likely be livestock-oriented. The traditional impediments to northern agriculture of short seasons, high precipitation rates and heavy soils are being overcome.

"Our strategic direction is as follows:

"The Ministry of Northern Affairs' objective in agriculture is to encourage the growth and development of the agrifood sector by assisting in overcoming production and marketing constraints and by creating an environment which will allow the private sector to take advantage of the agricultural potential in northern Ontario."

That lays out exactly where we fit into this picture of agriculture in northern Ontario. As the honourable member has correctly pointed out, there are problems with respect to transportation and small markets; there is no question about it.

As I am sure the member for Lake Nipigon is aware, some time ago we did a very intensive study which had input from the private sector and from government, of import substitution all across northern Ontario, and then we zeroed in on the Sudbury area. It helped to pinpoint areas to which the local community and the local farmers could supply products. It is working.

The member's question about the food terminal has been around for some considerable time. We looked at it very carefully. I am sure the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has done so as well, and I am sure it will answer the same way as we will: private sector investment and private sector initiative and involvement just were not there because the markets were so small.

Mr. Wildman: Why are you sandbagging the member for Cochrane South?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am not sandbagging him at all.

Those of us in northern Ontario know full well that the efficiency of the transportation system today is such that a lot of those commodities can be moved back and forth and up to northern Ontario at a very economical rate, and that is what has happened. The local producers just cannot compete; we have to face that fact. In western Ontario, all our food products come from Manitoba and from western Canada. That competition is hard to overcome; there is no question about it.

I certainly appreciate the member's input, and I will make sure the Minister of Agriculture and Food is made aware of his concerns.

I want to recognize the member's discussion with regard to the agricultural and rural development agreement and point out to him that ARDA has been dead for some four or five years. My ministry has been in existence for only seven years; so ARDA was being wound down as we came into existence.

ARDA did perform a function in northern Ontario. In my area alone a lot of the land that was bought up by the farmers proved to be uneconomical for farming and has now reverted to the crown for forest production; so in some areas it did not really work. The community pastures are still in place in many parts of northern Ontario; they are functioning. But for all intents and purposes there is no more ARDA program.

There are deals with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food with respect to land. Since I am not involved directly with them, that decision will rest with the Minister of Agriculture and Food, as would the crop insurance plan; we have no involvement in that.

Quite frankly, if we hear of something going awry in northern Ontario, then obviously as a coordinating ministry we bring it to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

I can say in all sincerity that the question of ARDA land has not come to our attention. I had my assistant deputy minister from the northwest here and another from the northeast. They live up there; one lives in Kenora and one lives in Sault Ste. Marie. I asked them if they had heard about problems relating to ARDA lands, and nothing has come to their attention. If it had not come to their attention, it certainly would not have come to mine.

It may be a matter in which the member has specific problems or specific people in mind. If it is, I will be glad to funnel them through to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

4 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the member for Huron-Middlesex is confusing ARDA with the northern Ontario rural development agreement, which has an agricultural component in it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am going to get to that in a minute and explain what NORDA is all about.

When ARDA was winding down, we entered into a very extensive $18.5-million agreement with the federal government that had an agricultural component. It dealt with the areas we had identified in our studies in northern Ontario with regard to import substitution. NORDA responded to land drainage, land clearing, market development, storage and grain-handling equipment, to name just a few. I have a copy of the brochure I will send to the member. This is the program that followed ARDA.

NORDA was in place for three years and wound down as of March 31 this year. It was well accepted across northern Ontario, I might say. In that three-year period members will be pleased to know we funded 164 projects at a total cost of $5 million. In that total package were two slaughterhouses and we also have one slaughterhouse coming under support from our own northern development program. All the areas I have mentioned, even demonstration projects and technology transfers, were included in NORDA.

We tried to renegotiate NORDA because it was very beneficial. It had a tourism component to it, an agricultural, industry or community infrastructure component and a native component. It was a fairly good program and it was funded 50-50 by the federal government. When the program was winding down, I was receiving regular phone calls and I was in constant contact with the federal government to renegotiate for another three to five years.

That was our hope and our goal, but we were told they were interested in going for only three months at first. I do not know how one could keep a program of that size and broad application going for three months. After I made some noise, Mr. Lumley phoned back one day and said, "We are prepared to go for six months," which is absolutely ridiculous. We said, "In view of your reluctance to go forward with what we think is a good program, we will go it alone." Northern Affairs came up with its own program, with the support of Agriculture and Food.

We took the best components of NORDA and put them in the AgriNorth program, a $10-million program shared equally by the Ministry of Northern Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

We are not experts in any of these fields. Our role is to top up funding, to push and encourage. We try to move other ministries in a direction we think the unique northern Ontario needs require that ministry to go. In many instances, they say to us, "It is a great program, a great idea, but we do not have sufficient money." In our ministry we do have the flexibility to put in funds where we think they should be applied to top up. We topped up this particular program and it is working exceptionally well. It is in place now and the brochures are available. I will send one across to the member.

I might mention also in the field of agriculture, our staff identified a serious weakness in northern Ontario, indeed in the province, related to seed potatoes. Up to a few years ago, we were importing 100 per cent of certified seed potatoes.

We went to Agriculture and Food and shared the cost of a massive seed potato production experiment that will eventually make Ontario self-sufficient in seed potatoes.

We put up $200,000 and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food put up the other $200,000. That is going through the agricultural college at New Liskeard and is something we identified and brought to the attention of Agriculture and Food. There is no question they were aware of it, but with our extra infusion of dollars it was possible to make it fly and make it work.

We also identified heat waste in northern Ontario, particularly at Raymore. The pipelines were spewing off many BTUs of heat every day from their piping system. With the co-operation of the college at Kirkland Lake, we were able to talk the pipeline owners into providing the excess heat for an experiment at Raymore Lake that grew beautiful tomatoes. In fact, two years ago I brought a case down and delivered them to my critics --

Mr. Wildman: You sent some to me. We enjoyed them very much.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is right. They were good. They were grown on this experimental farm at Raymore using excess heat from the gas company. Those are the things we are involved in, trying to do the things to which the member refers. Maybe we are not moving as fast as some people would like; nevertheless, we are there and we are working very closely with those small operations. It is obvious they have to be small when one thinks that we have only 10 per cent of the population up there and 90 per cent of the population down here. The member's idea of farming, as it relates to northern Ontario, is much larger than what we need and have up in northern Ontario.

Another area we are working very closely with is the mushroom growers in the Sudbury area and the Sault Ste. Marie area. Believe it or not, there are two operations up there that are producing sufficient fresh mushrooms for both of those areas. Also, we are working very closely with the Gibson reserve in the Parry Sound area, providing lettuce for that area.

The member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) is aware of what is going on. He is a very strong supporter of that program. We are certainly moving along with our efforts in canola. The experiments at the New Liskeard College of Agricultural Technology are very encouraging.

We are moving ahead in a number of different areas, but I say to the honourable member, as it relates to the slaughterhouses and abattoirs in northern Ontario, I have been most fortunate in being able to get three established. One has been there for several years. We assisted a veterinarian who moved from Dryden to Thunder Bay. I think it is going exceptionally well now. It had a few rough years. We have a small entrepreneur operating in the Dryden area, an abattoir that is serving the entire area. There is also a very efficient one in the Rainy River area.

One of our problems is in getting federal inspection. It is very difficult to get federal inspectors up there, and they are complaining constantly. I think if we had more federal inspectors or the ability to have more federal inspection, then we could ship that meat outside of that area. Now they just sell within their own respective jurisdictions.

Mr. Riddell: Now the minister can speak to his kissing cousins.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is right. Now that we have a new, enlightened administration in Ottawa, I would hope the Minister of Agriculture and Food will take that approach and see if we can break that logjam.

I would encourage the honourable members to go into the Dryden area to see the sheep operation that is going on there at present. It is one of the largest in northern Ontario, and it supplies that whole area with lamb, sheep and mutton. It is a fantastic operation. They will have anywhere from 1,000 and sometimes 2,000 sheep in that one area just outside of Dryden.

Bob Eglie has not only gone into the meat processing operation, he has also set up a very successful wool and sheep products retail sales branch where they actually -- what do they do with wool?

Mr. Stokes: They card it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They card the wool, and they have people onsite actually carding the wool, and knitters working and knitting various sweaters, toques, and socks, and they are on sale right there. It is a local product employing local people, and it is going over exceptionally well.

I make that suggestion to the member. If he is up around that area, if he is up at the Bernier picnic, because our picnic is just about two miles away from that great sheep farm, he might want to take in both events next August. He can have an experience with a sheep farm and then a very enjoyable afternoon at the Bernier picnic.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know if I can add much more. I have already said about crop insurance, as I pointed out, along with the possible agricultural and rural development agreement programs, we will certainly bring these to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, but we do not have any direct involvement in those.

I share the concern of the member's party and his hope that agriculture can be expanded in northern Ontario, because we are all on the same track in that field. How fast and how far we go is something we will have to wait and see the direction each party takes.

Our government has recognized the need. I know the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has. We have come forward with suggestions that have been fully supported by that ministry. Supported by our enthusiasm and our dollars, they seem to be moving ahead. If the member has some other suggestions as to how we can improve or better the interests of the farmers in northern Ontario, I would like to hear from him.

Mr. Stokes: I am the last one in the world to claim that I know anything about agriculture. I know about as much as the minister does. However, in dealing with the new AgriNorth initiatives by this ministry to the tune of $10 million, I read in the papers that the people in the Dryden area are somewhat concerned about the emphasis of the specific programs, where the government will give a certain subsidy for land clearing and another kind of subsidy for tile drainage.

With one of those two programs, if they do the work themselves rather than hiring a contractor to come in and do it, the subsidy is lowered accordingly. Their legitimate question is, why does the government not treat both the same? In terms of tile drainage, I guess they are not in a position to do it themselves. In terms of clearing, they are able to, but they do not get the same subsidy if they do the work themselves. Is it a job creation program or what is it? I know it is of concern to the farmers in the area. Is the minister addressing it? Does he think they have a legitimate beef?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In answer to the member's question, that was a continuation of the NORDA approach. When we announced the AgriNorth program in Dryden, the farmers were quick to point out that much of the work can be done by their own equipment. Under the rules of NORDA, they had to contract with the farmer across the street to do their clearing, which they could do themselves.

I gather that in setting the criteria with the feds and ourselves under the NORDA program, there was a policing situation. They wanted to make sure they were not hiring all their own relatives and that there were those kinds of problems.

I have assured the farmers in our area that we will have a close look at that because I think there are some economies that can be appreciated. There is no question that an individual working for himself can do it a lot cheaper than by hiring. I think that was one of the concerns NORDA had. We are taking a serious look at that because it merits further consideration.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of concerns I would like to raise with the minister on his ministry's role as a ministry co-ordinating the work of the line ministries in northern Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: This is going to be mean.

Mr. Wildman: I am not sure whether it is going to be mean.

Mr. Laughren: It could be.

Mr. Van Horne: : It will not be nice, let us put it that way.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I will decide that.

Mr. Wildman: I would like the minister to explain the position of his ministry with regard to water and sewer projects for small communities or municipalities in northern Ontario, and the relationship between the Ministry of Northern Affairs and the Ministry of the Environment.

As the minister mentioned a few moments ago, the Ministry of Northern Affairs does top up -- I think that was the term he used -- some programs of other ministries where they are considered to be required and useful, but where the local community would have difficulty, I suppose in some cases with the Ontario Municipal Board, in proceeding under the normal grant structure of the line ministry.

The improvement district of Dubreuilville in my riding recently received substantial funding from the Ministry of Northern Affairs to top up the grant the Ministry of the Environment was prepared to give to enable it to proceed with a water and sewer project.

Perhaps I am not being fair, but it appears the Ministry of the Environment may be taking advantage of this. In some cases, the top grant the Ministry of the Environment can give is about 75 per cent. Initially it appeared Dubreuilville was going to get 75 per cent from that ministry, but after the Ministry of Northern Affairs indicated it was prepared to become involved, the Ministry of the Environment's share actually came through at 62 per cent, I believe.

What has happened is that the Ministry of the Environment is saving money by saying, "If the Ministry of Northern Affairs is going to get involved here, we might as well not give the total highest amount we could give and in this way save money in our budget."

It does not save the taxpayers any money. It still comes through at the total dollar amount. I suppose it will cost the taxpayers the same. If there is a topping-up by the Ministry of Northern Affairs, I would like to know whether it is a real topping-up or a bottoming-out by the Ministry of the Environment.

I know the minister is aware of other municipalities where the Ministry of Northern Affairs has been involved. For instance, it has been involved in White River and has been of good assistance there. I know the township of Johnson in my riding has also recently written to the minister indicating it would like to get some assistance so that it could participate with the Ministry of the Environment in a services project for the community of Desbarats in the township.

In the context of the Ministry of the Environment, I would like to find out how this topping-up process works and who really benefits other than perhaps the Ministry of the Environment.

I would also like to know about the relationship of the Ministry of Northern Affairs and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. When the Ministry of Northern Affairs was established and the responsibility for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications capital construction program for northern Ontario was transferred to the Ministry of Northern Affairs, I know there were some -- not many -- within the Ministry of Transportation and Communications who did not feel this was really necessary. There may even still be a vestige of that feeling in that ministry. Perhaps even some of the staff has moved.

I would like to know whether the Ministry of Northern Affairs in its co-ordinating role and overall setting of priorities can indicate to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications that a project should be speeded up, even if the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, which has its normal five-year capital construction program, has not included that project within its five-year capital construction program.

In other words, perhaps the MTC officials come to the Ministry of Northern Affairs and say: "This is what we think is necessary for construction over the next five years. There could be adjustments within that five-year period, but these are the highways we think need to be constructed."

4:20 p.m.

I would ask whether the Ministry of Northern Affairs could say, "We do not necessarily disagree with that but there is another capital construction program that the community has not included in the next five years which we believe," for economic reasons or whatever, "should be included."

Having asked that question, I would like to know what involvement this ministry has had with Highway 548. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications is going on what it calls a day labour program and doing so much a year, but it is not including it in its five-year capital construction program. Another example is Highway 638, where there is a 13-kilometre stretch the MTC has not included in its five-year construction program; yet we have had voluminous petitions to this House asking for its support.

The question of roads is an interesting one because it does not just relate to the MTC. In the unorganized areas the Ministry of Natural Resources sometimes becomes involved. The minister will know that the community of Oba at the junction of the Canadian National and Algoma Central Railway lines in northern Algoma, south of Hearst, has been put in a very vulnerable position since Newaygo has been sold by Consolidated Papers Inc. The road the people have used for access to their community from Hearst apparently will not be maintained this year.

I understand from the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Aiken, who is sitting in front of the minister, that the ministry is monitoring the situation and is prepared to ensure that the residents of Oba will have access. What is the role of the Ministry of Northern Affairs in a situation such as this? It is not an MTC road; in fact, it has been a private or industrial road, but it is used for public access.

Can the ministry become involved when the lifeline of a community is threatened, especially now that we have had the federal government cut the number of passenger trains on the CN? I would like to hear the minister's response, and then I have some questions with regard to his co-ordinating role in health services in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to thank the member for Algoma for becoming involved in these estimates. It would not have been the same without his input over all these years. I appreciate his contribution and his concern. As a devout northerner, I am sure he is aware of all the very specific problems those of us who live up there share.

Mr. Laughren: He is waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: His question with respect to sewer and water is very timely. I do not know if he is aware that there are discussions going on at present between my ministry and the Ministry of the Environment with respect to the grant formula and the percentage. We were led to believe the Dubreuilville grant from the Ministry of Energy would be 75 per cent and we were prepared to contribute accordingly. That is the figure we have been working with for some considerable time and we are just a little disappointed to find it is going down to 62 per cent. I will be writing to my colleague formally to express our point of view because we do not think that level should be reduced.

In calculating what our involvement should be, we look at a number of things. What is the basic tax load of that small community? Does it have the wherewithal to carry the financial responsibility not only for the capital construction cost, but also for the ongoing costs? We have to look at that very carefully and also to compare what that community pays in its overall tax load with what another community pays. I do not think one community that might be a better manager of its affairs or not as good as somebody else should lean on the government for that kind of assistance.

Those are the types of things we look at very carefully with the Ministry of Energy in setting up our financial assistance. Ours goes up to about 12.5 per cent. If a community is getting 75 per cent from the Ministry of Energy, it can look to us, if it qualifies for the various points, for up to 12.5 per cent, which makes the load reasonably light if it does not bite off too much.

I expressed the same point of view as the member did with respect to the Ministry of Energy pulling back and the Ministry of Northern Affairs taking over. I recall vividly meeting with the former Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Harry Parrott. At that point, I asked the question, "What was the Ministry of the Environment's expenditure in capital construction for sewers and water in northern Ontario for the last two or three years?" It came out that it was between 16 and 18 per cent.

I made it very clear before we moved into this particular support program that it was our hope -- in fact, I think we would demand -- that this percentage not diminish over a period of two or three years. I think it would be destroying our efforts to do what we should be doing in northern Ontario. Its grant structure should remain the same; its total capital dollars should remain fairly constant in northern Ontario. Then we can work from there to answer all the needs of northern Ontario.

We are very aware of this and we share the member's concerns. Certainly, we are discussing this particular area of concern with the Ministry of the Environment on an ongoing basis.

Mr. Wildman: Can you be sure the same thing will not happen to the township of Johnson?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I cannot assure it, but I can assure the member we will watch it very carefully because we are the ones who have to carry the can. If we press the right people and bring it to their attention, we can keep our visibility and keep the share spread between the two ministries, as we have done for the past six or seven years. That is our hope and our goal.

With respect to highways, we have a very close relationship with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, as he obviously understands. I think he touched on a few points that have some sensitivity, and this is what I call tiptoeing through the tulips, believe me. Many of our own staff come from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. In fact, I am pleased to say that my deputy minister is formerly of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and my assistant deputy minister here in front of me is formerly of that ministry.

Mr. Wildman: That is why I mentioned it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The assistant deputy minister from northwestern Ontario, Bill Lees, is from that ministry. We have inherited some excellent people from that ministry who know their operations exceptionally well and are able to co-ordinate very well because they know how the Ministry of Transportation and Communications operates, how it plans and how it coordinates.

Mr. Wildman: Do they feel comfortable telling Harold Gilbert what to do?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh, I think they do. They do it very diplomatically.

Living in northern Ontario as they do, travelling the highways as they do on an ongoing basis and with 70 per cent of their staff located in northern Ontario, they have a first-hand feel. They know what the pressure points are; they know what the needs are. The demand made by northerners several years ago that priorities be established in northern Ontario by northerners was a very real one, and we hope we can maintain it.

We have some difficulties, but our success to date is something we are proud of. We have answered and continue to answer the needs with respect to new highway construction. I am not exactly certain but I think Highways 548 and 638 are minor capital programs; they are repairs. They would come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, not our jurisdiction. Ours has to do with major capital construction programs. It may well be that this falls under their jurisdiction. There is no five-year planning for that, I might say.

Regarding the question of Oba, Biscotasing is another area in which we have established an interministerial committee chaired by the Ministry of Northern Affairs because we have seen this as a real problem in northern Ontario. There is a small pocket of population; there is no municipal government. There are 25 or 30 families, maybe 50 people. There could be a long stretch of road that was opened up maybe by a pulp and paper company. Maybe some entrepreneur went in and extracted all the valuable merchantable timber and then walked away from it, of course, and left it with an access that deteriorates very quickly.

4:30 p.m.

We have been able to respond to the Biscotasing situation through our northern Ontario resources transportation committee. The member will note during the estimates that the funding for NORT has increased by half a million dollars this year. We are using this committee in answer to the needs of the two regions, the Kenora region and the Sault Ste. Marie region, to respond to the needs of those small communities.

We sometimes have to lean on the Ministry of Natural Resources to do the maintenance and sometimes we lean on the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. They do not particularly like going up there.

Mr. Stokes: Like the Northern Light Lake road.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is in good condition.

Sometimes we even have to look to the private sector to do the work for us and we contract it out. We do it in a number of different ways. We hope we can continue to answer the needs of those small communities. It is sometimes difficult to compare the cost benefits we obtain from it, but nevertheless we are dealing with people who require access. I think it is incumbent on us to find a way to provide decent access for those small pockets