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

June 7, 1982

32nd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

PREPARATION OF BUDGET

FACILITIES FOR METRO VIGIL

APPOINTMENT TO BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

VISITOR

WITHDRAWAL OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

GOVERNMENT JET

DEATH OF KIM ANNE POPEN

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO BORROWING

TAX BURDEN

HYDRO RATES

ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS

HYDRO STAFF

TAX BURDEN

BUY-CANADIAN POLICY

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

SALES OF DUTY-FREE LIQUOR

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

JOB CREATION

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ROYAL ASSENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PEER AND SMITH LIMITED ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

PREPARATION OF BUDGET

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask your direction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Be persistent.

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

FACILITIES FOR METRO VIGIL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:10 p.m.

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

APPOINTMENT TO BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

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

"On the recommendation of the undersigned, the Lieutenant Governor, by and with the advice and concurrence of the executive council, orders that

whereas the Legislative Assembly Act,

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

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

VISITOR

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

WITHDRAWAL OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Kerrio: The same thing happened here today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Later]

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

I do regard it as a very serious matter when one member accuses another member of lying. I think the standing orders are quiet on this as to the exact action to be taken, other than naming the member.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some hon. members: Hurray!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOVERNMENT JET

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

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

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

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

DEATH OF KIM ANNE POPEN

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

2:20 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO BORROWING

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

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

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

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

2:30 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Leader of the Opposition asked me if Hydro is able to borrow. I would point out that I think he has stretched

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TAX BURDEN

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:40 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HYDRO RATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:50 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HYDRO STAFF

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

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

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

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

3 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

TAX BURDEN

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

Is the provincial Treasurer aware the regional municipality of Sudbury passed a resolution? This states, as follows: "Whereas the recent provincial budget announcements will have substantial financial impact on municipal taxpayers, and

whereas the provincial budget announcements were made after most municipalities had adopted budget estimates for the year 1982 resulting in cost overruns for municipalities or service cutbacks, therefore,

be it resolved that the regional municipality of Sudbury petition the province of Ontario to extend retail sales tax exemptions for municipalities."

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

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Foulds: First question.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: A first supplementary, I mean.

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

BUY-CANADIAN POLICY

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

3:10 p.m.

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

Ms. Copps: You were ill-informed.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

Interjections

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

part in the study?

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

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

SALES OF DUTY-FREE LIQUOR

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

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

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

Mr. Kerrio: What is free enterprise?

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

An hon. member: All the time.

Mr. Kerrio: You better believe it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Who was that?

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

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

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

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

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

3:20 p.m.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

JOB CREATION

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

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

What kind of cruel joke is the minister playing on the unemployed in those cities to promise relief and then come up with that kind of pathetic response?

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

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

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

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

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

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

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

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

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

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

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

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

ROYAL ASSENT

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

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

Bill 6,

An Act to revise the Business Corporations Act;

Bill 9,

An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act;

Bill 36,

An Act to establish the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture;

Bill 41,

An Act to establish the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation;

Bill 60,

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

Bill Pr3,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr7,

An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

3:30 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PEER AND SMITH LIMITED ACT

Mr. Brandt moved, seconded by Mr. Dean, first reading of Bill Pr23,

An Act to revive Peer and Smith Limited.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman: Do we have full House agreement?

Agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:40 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Stokes: He was reading my speeches.

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

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

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

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

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

However, I am surprised to have the member for Rainy River stand up and talk about economic development, particularly after what this ministry has done in Atikokan. I thought he would stand up and recite

chapter and verse of what the Ministry of Northern Affairs has done to create a stable atmosphere in the town of Atikokan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The writer of the

article cites

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

3:50 p.m.

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

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

Mr. Stokes: How many new mines?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. T. P. Reid: Ida Olsen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Yours truly, David Head."

4 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to find out, in addition to my earlier comments, about the advocacy role this minister plays on behalf of northerners, whether it be the nature of the budget that was brought down, whether it be the seemingly discriminatory hydro rate policies of Ontario Hydro or whether it be the indifference with regard to the unusually high costs for northern communities.

We have a task force that has been out for about eight months studying this very bothersome but complex problem, and as I said in my opening remarks, we have places in northern Ontario where they are paying $5 a gallon for gasoline, $2 for a loaf of bread, anywhere from $2.25 to $2.50 for a dozen eggs, 50 cents for an apple, 50 cents for an orange, and on it goes. The minister knows that.

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

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

4:10 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Excluding the members.

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4:20 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Stokes: You do not believe them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4:30 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

That gives members an idea of what we are doing and, as I said to the member for Rainy River, we are doing that on an individual basis. We are getting the communities interested, getting initiatives stirred up within each community and the