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

November 9, 1977

31st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L046 - Wed 9 Nov 1977 / Mer 9 nov 1977

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SALARY INCREASES

INDUSTRIAL MILK REGULATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUCLEAR WASTE

INDIAN COMMUNITY SECRETARIAT

VENTURE INVESTMENTS BY INCO

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION BOARD

BROWNDALE

ACTIONS OF POLICE AT BURLINGTON

COFFEE COMPANY DISPUTE

OHC LAND SALES

LOTTERY GRANTS

HEALTH OF WORKERS AT RED LAKE

ENROLMENT OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

HORNEPAYNE TOWN CENTRE

PROVINCIAL GRANTS

ROSS SHOULDICE

PURCHASE OF ART OBJECTS

COFFEE PRICING

REPORTS

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

VISITOR

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SALARY INCREASES

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that a tentative settlement was reached last night between the government and the Ontario Public Services Employees Union on salary increases for bargaining unit employees in the administrative services category.

This is one of the three contracts which expired on September 30 last.

The agreement was arrived at with the help of a mediator appointed by the Ontario Public Services Labour Relations Tribunal, and, if ratified by the employees concerned, will provide increases ranging from 6.1 per cent for the highest paid employees in the group to 8.6 per cent for those in the lowest salary range. The average cost of the settlement is approximately 1.1 per cent and is within the limits established by the Anti-Inflation Act.

INDUSTRIAL MILK REGULATION

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I had intended today to make quite a lengthy statement. With your approval, I will table my lengthy statement and stay with my short statement.

I wish to inform the members that I have reached an agreement with the Mennonite Central Committee regarding concerns of the Old Order Amish about the can-to-bulk conversion for industrial milk.

Members may recall that when this question first arose, we suggested two alternatives, namely the conversion to cream shipping only or the building of communal bulk tanks off the farm. Although the communal tank was initially accepted, it later ran into problems. Throughout this entire time I have conducted informal talks with the Mennonite Central Committee, and during one of these informal talks a point was raised that seemed well worth pursuing

According to the committee, there was no objection to the use of gasoline or diesel-powered engines. I discussed the use of this type of engine for the cooling of a bulk tank with the Ontario Milk Commission, which agreed that this arrangement would meet the intent of the health regulations.

I was about to announce that we were prepared to amend the regulations to allow for this type of tank on October 27. That was the day, however, when the Amish launched their appeal with the cabinet. Instead I announced the postponement of the implementation of the regulation.

In the last week the Premier (Mr. Davis) and I have met with Mr. John Laskin and Mr. Ian Hunter, the official legal representatives appointed by the Mennonite Central Committee to represent the Amish. I myself met with the Amish in Kitchener on the weekend and I’m happy to say that a solution acceptable to all is in sight.

The Amish have informed me that our proposal that they operate their bulk tank by direct-drive gasoline or diesel-powered engines has met with the approval of three of the five Amish communities concerned. The other two are not opposed. They have some reservations but are mainly concerned with whether to switch to cream shipping or to bulk shipment.

The importance of this development is twofold from the point of view of the Amish community. It means that they can continue to operate their dairy farms without electricity. It also laid to rest their concern about the survival of their family farms and their ability to pass farms from father to son.

I have asked the Ontario Milk Marketing Board to meet with the Amish to discuss their concerns about the handling and marketing of their milk. I have also informed the board that I would be prepared to accompany the Amish to this meeting. The board has agreed to a meeting, scheduled for later this month.

From the outset of our discussions we have endeavoured to explore every possible alternative. This government does not have to be reminded of the valuable contributions made by the Amish to the social fabric of this province. Our problem was finding a solution that would safeguard provincial health standards and would not cause undue hardship. Mr. Speaker, we have met both these objectives.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUCLEAR WASTE

Ms. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. It’s not so bad, Jim, relax.

Mr. Lewis: Relax? He’s almost comatose.

Mr. S. Smith: Is the minister aware of proposals of the Atomic Energy Control Board to the federal government suggesting that the federal government establish a separate arm’s-length-away agency to handle nuclear waste? Does the minister not feel, as I do, that the provincial government should have some involvement with any such proposals, in the sense of a federal-provincial secretariat or a federal-provincial agency of some kind to handle the matter of nuclear wastes?

Is this not the time to get involved in those discussions now that the matter is just at the proposal stage, so that we in this province, with our great concern for the environment -- as has been demonstrated with our Port Hope problems and, of course, the near problem at Madoc and so on -- could make that suggestion and be involved with the federal government at the planning stage of the nuclear waste agency?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I guess I’m as familiar as the Leader of the Opposition with the recent news report. May I say that my ministry is in continual touch in that regard and we have done considerable work in connection with the overall concept of waste management and the different aspects of it.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Would the minister to some extent be willing to take us and the public into his confidence and let us know what proposals he and his ministry have made to the federal government, and whether they are, in fact, planning a submission at this time so as to make the proposed nuclear waste agency truly a federal-provincial one, rather than leaving it totally and completely under the auspices of the federal government, despite what the laws happen to be at the time?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: May I inform the Leader of the Opposition and the House that this whole area concerned me shortly after becoming Minister of Energy, especially as it focused on a site near Madoc for waste management. When I looked at the background of that I very quickly made a decision that this was not the way to proceed. We had the AECL at the federal level and, of course, Ontario Hydro at the provincial level, two Crown agencies that might very well be running ahead of government insofar as government had not determined what its policy would be.

I called the federal minister, Mr. Gillespie, and made arrangements to see him in Ottawa in connection with that. I brought to his attention my concern and suggested we might define our respective roles and responsibilities in connection with this area. That proposition was accepted at the federal level. Since then, we have been working in this whole area. As members can appreciate, there is a mixed jurisdiction and it is necessary to determine what provincial responsibilities are in regard to the fact that we in this province, through Ontario Hydro, are a large consumer of uranium.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: I wonder what the minister has to suggest to the people in the Chalk River area, for example, who are receiving much of the nuclear waste of this particular province and what specific proposal he might bring to the federal Minister of Energy to prevent a situation occurring in the future that forces such extraordinary cost upon the people of this province in terms of carrying that waste such a great distance. I think the cost is well over the $1-million mark right now. I am wondering what specific proposals the minister might have to prevent that kind of costly situation from recurring?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I think our major concern in Ontario is the waste and irradiated fuel that results from the utilization of natural uranium in our reactors. I think that is the big problem and we have facilities to accommodate that on our sites so that it is not a question of transferring great volumes of waste or irradiated fuel to Chalk River.

If one transports the irradiated fuel, for example, to a central site or interim storage or long-term storage, the handling is going to run into a considerable amount of money. There is no question about that. It’s a cost that I think is incidental to our use of uranium and which we can accommodate. But the member should remember we have quite an investment in this province in irradiated fuel. It’s not a liability. It’s really an economic asset.

Mr. S. Smith: Could I ask one more supplementary to this question which comes from the last words? If the minister regards irradiated fuel as an asset, do I take it then he is in support of the idea that we should reprocess this fuel for further use in more advanced reactors? If so, would he please make that clear as government policy because I would certainly take issue with him?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: There is no government policy developed as yet on reprocessing.

Mr. Warner: On just about anything.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: It’s a policy that would have to be enunciated by the federal government. As the Leader of the Opposition may know, there was a meeting of seven nations in London on May 7 -- Prime Minister Trudeau was there -- at which time it was agreed to make a study in connection with advanced fuel cycles and the aspect of reprocessing. It was expected that would defer the decision for about two years.

[2:15]

I say it’s an asset because there are certainly countries in the world that do reprocess. England reprocesses at Windscale and France reprocesses. I think Windscale has lost some business because of events there. Japan, for example, has given probably half of its business to France rather than to England. That is a loss of business. I’m sure that Windscale, for example, would consider reprocessing of our fuel if we made that overture.

It could very well be that the reprocessed fuel could then be sold to other nations which have a need for it, because there are over 40 nations in this world that are using uranium in the generation of electricity. What I’m saying is that there really is an asset there.

Mr. Reed: Supplementary: Since there is obviously, according to the minister, a cost factor involved, either positive or negative as the case may he depending on government decision, will the minister make sure that Ontario Hydro includes cost of this kind of waste disposal in its nuclear generation program, so that the true cost of this nuclear program is figured into Hydro’s price of power generation?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I’m sure that the cost of fuel and fuel management would certainly be factored into the cost of production of electricity through nuclear reactors. May I say, though, that fuel as a percentage of cost of the electricity in a nuclear plant is about three-quarters of one per cent, as opposed to 21 per cent of the total cost of production of electricity by coal.

Mr. Speaker: We’ve spent 10 minutes on that question.

INDIAN COMMUNITY SECRETARIAT

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the minister in charge of interministerial cooperation with regard to Indian affairs. I guess that would be the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Is the minister able to tell us what has happened in the Kenora office of the Indian community secretariat? Is he able to tell us why it is that a staff of five people has dwindled due to resignations until the only person there is a secretary-receptionist who from time to time answers the phone? What happened to this vaunted notion of interministerial co-operation and this marvellous secretariat that the government was setting up?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I’m just aware that there was one vacancy. One of the senior persons has left for another position that he accepted in the province of Manitoba where the remuneration was higher. I am not aware that there is such a shortage of staff as the hon. Leader of the Opposition mentions, but I’ll be pleased to look into it.

Mr. 5 Smith: When he’s looking into it, can the provincial secretary comment on the charge that’s been made by the person who left that there was really no interministerial co-operation allowing meaningful development in that area, and can he, in fact, explain to this House how it is that this vaunted idea of an Indian community secretariat has been allowed to dwindle down to the point where it has neither personnel nor function?

Is he doing anything with regard to the devastated economy of that area consequent upon the mercury pollution which has occurred, and what is the policy of this government with regard to the Grassy Narrows and Whitedog reserves, given the fact that their economy has been devastated?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: As far as the services to native people in northern Ontario are concerned, I’m not aware that there has been a deterioration of services. The services are still being provided. As for the Grassy Narrows and the Whitedog Indian reserves, the fish-for-food program is still in effect, it is still being done and there are various programs, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition probably knows. There is an interministerial committee, federal and provincial, which has been working with the native people of those two Indian reserves on various programs. I’m not aware of any of the problems that the leader refers to.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary, coming right back to the first question which the Leader of the Opposition asked? Is it true that the government has farmed out by way of private contract to a management consultant firm a review of the Indian development secretariat in the Ministry of Culture and Recreation to which the member for Hamilton West referred? Can he table the terms of reference of that review of the Indian community secretariat in this Legislature, and can he tell us which of the native people’s groups the management firm has discussed these matters with?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The Indian community secretariat comes directly under the Ministry of Culture and Recreation. I am aware that there is an internal review of the secretariat. However, I do believe it is up to that minister to make that information available to the hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, the provincial secretary is the minister co-ordinating all of these matters as I understand it. Is it true that he has hired a private management consultant firm to review the activities of the Indian community secretariat and its future?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That could well be.

Mr. Lewis: You don’t know?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I don’t know.

Mr. Warner: Right on the ball.

Mr. Lewis: Neither do I, but I am asking.

VENTURE INVESTMENTS BY INCO

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism? Has the minister been in touch with Inco about the amounts of money which Inco is investing in venture capital undertakings and the areas where those investments may take place?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I’m not aware of the venture capital investments that the hon. leader of the NDP refers to. If there is one, we’ll take it under advisement in the ministry.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does it not strike the minister as peculiar that Inco, this company in so much economic difficulty, has all kinds of money, apparently millions of dollars, to invest in venture equity capital right now on the marketplace, advertising, none of which is to be directed towards the Sudbury basin? Can the minister explain that?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, I cannot.

Mr. Warner: You’re too busy travelling.

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a question of the Minister of Labour? Does the Minister of Labour know that Michael Starr, the chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, is now publicly on record as saying that the Workmen’s Compensation Board will probably be replaced in the future with a universal insurance scheme in the province of Ontario?

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: Since on this one occasion I am prepared to attribute to Mr. Starr prophetic wisdom, may I ask the minister whether that mirrors government policy since he stated it categorically?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I think the chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board was expressing a personal view related to his experience and the knowledge that he has gained in his present role --

Mr. Wildman: He wants to get out of it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and examining the experience of those jurisdictions which have moved in this direction. I think he is suggesting that several light years down the road this sort of thing might happen in Canada as well.

Mr. Swart: It will be with you.

Mr. Conway: That’s the speed.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m not sure that he was saying that specifically about the province of Ontario.

Mr. Wildman: That’s the speed at which your government goes.

Hon. B. Stephenson: But I think he feels that this is the direction probably in which movement will take place in the future.

Mr. Roy: He is very prophetic about the government.

Mr. O’Neil: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Labour what her views are along this line?

Mr. Lewis: That is what I thought I asked.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, that isn’t the question that the hon. member for Scarborough West asked. I am very interested in watching carefully --

Mr. Samis: In the fullness of time.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- the experience which has been gained in New Zealand, the one jurisdiction which has moved specifically in that direction. There are so many problems with that program right at the moment that it is, I gather, a little hit dubious whether it may survive.

Mr. Lewis: Slander. Shame, shame. Michael Starr knows better.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, that’s entirely true. None the less, this is an interesting experiment which I think is going to be of great value to all jurisdictions --

Mr. Warner: Get moving along with it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- which have to deal with this kind of problem. I think it’s the kind of information which will be invaluable to us in developing future programs.

Mr. Laughren: In view of the fact that the chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board has admitted there needs to be some kind of umbrella protection for people in the province, I’m wondering whether or not people within the Labour ministry or at the board are investigating, along the lines that the Saskatchewan people did, the possibility of establishing this in the province of Ontario, and to not dismiss the whole question out of hand?

Hon. B. Stephenson: There was no intention on my part to dismiss this out of hand. As I said, we are watching with great interest the developments of similar programs in other jurisdictions.

Mr. McClellan: You said light years.

Hon. B. Stephenson: They have met, as I said, many problems in trying to develop these programs. I think we can gain a good deal of knowledge from their experience in this field and we shall continue to watch them carefully.

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can she recall about a year ago last December a resolution passed in the ministry’s estimates, and adopted by the ministry, that n study he initiated to cover this particular area of a comprehensive plan for injured workers in Ontario? I believe that ale said, based on a letter that I had directed to her, that the study would be completed by June of this year. Is that study now completed?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not. One preliminary report has been received. I anticipate that we will have the total report by the middle or the end of December of this year.

Mr. Laughren: Do the Liberals support this?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Indeed, the direction which was given to us during those discussions by that resolution will have been completed by that time and we shall have a report.

Mr. Reid: Will you table the report?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Oh, I would think so.

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: Will you table the report?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to take that under consideration.

BROWNDALE

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Is the Premier aware that an opinion from Mr. Scullion, the acting deputy director of the Crown law office, has totally blocked my efforts to properly review the Community and Social Services estimates, specifically the amount of money expended on Browndale, Ontario? And that the minister, citing this opinion, has even refused to tell the committee how much money is currently flowing to Browndale including any information as to the present per diem?

Would the Premier undertake to have this matter reviewed to ensure that we are able to receive at least the information pertaining to the present budget in that ministry or being reviewed in that ministry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not aware of any legal opinion that has been given on this matter but knowing the objectivity and the fair-mindedness of the hon. member for St. George and her own respect for legal opinions and the process of law, I’m sure that she must want to be guided, as is the ministry, by these legal opinions. I’d be quite prepared, short of giving a legal opinion of my own, which I’m always very reluctant to do --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t want to answer all these interjections. I would only say to the member for Ottawa East that if I really were in a position of choosing a legal opinion from the Attorney General or from the member for Ottawa East --

Mr. Roy: My record is better than his.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know something of the member’s record in the courts and he has lost more than one case.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, in the good old days he even lost some very easy prosecutions. Any assistant Crown Attorney out of Osgoode could have had them.

Mr. Roy: I am not even a QC and I value my opinion better than his.

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, I was diverted. I will say this to the member for Ottawa East, he certainly has been in the courts more recently than the Attorney General or myself -- probably like yesterday.

Mr. Roy: That is right. I am in shape -- in great form.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will be delighted to look into this for the hon. member.

[2:30]

Mrs. Campbell: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the government’s refusal since 1974 to answer questions regarding Browndale finances represents stonewalling which pre-dates the police investigation by nearly two years, would the Premier not agree that the opinion from this office is now being used to add legitimacy to the cover up of this subject? Can he assure us that when the police finally dispose of their investigation we will obtain the information we are seeking and that all papers, records and documents pertaining thereto will be preserved pending that information being given?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the hon. member started out her semi-question statement by saying “would the Premier not agree.” I guess I can give a very simple answer to that, Mr. Speaker: Yes, the Premier would not agree.

Mrs. Campbell: I have a supplementary:

Would the Premier at least go as far as to assure this House that he will see that all the documents and papers referring to this particular item will be preserved and available to us following the completion of the investigation by the OPP?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can’t undertake things that are not within the purview of the government or the ministry. That would be, I think, an unfair commitment to give or for the hon. member to ask. She is asking if there are any documents, or whatever it is that she would love to get her hands on, and I don’t even know what they are, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly I do my best to please the hon. member on all issues, as she well knows -- that is all issues raised here in the House. I certainly would undertake that any documentation in the ministry will not disappear. I can’t account for documents that might appear in some brown envelope under the hon. member’s door; I can’t control that sort :of situation. But certainly I will make every effort to see that there isn’t a disappearance of these documents that the hon. member is so anxious about.

ACTIONS OF POLICE AT BURLINGTON

Mr. Deans: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Is the Ontario Police Commission currently investigating, or are they about to investigate or have they been asked to investigate, the alleged brutalities being undertaken by the Burlington city police and Burlington regional police? In particular, would the minister look at the news story reported in yesterday’s edition of The Spectator with regard to some statements made by a Roy Murden, which seems to indicate that he, having been a policeman in Burlington, had taken

part in some rather serious brutality on a number of people who had been arrested by the Burlington police?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I thank the member for Wentworth f or drawing this to my attention. I can’t tell him whether the OPC has or has not been asked to investigate the matter but I will certainly read the article. I am not aware of it but I will make myself aware of it and report back to him.

Mr. Deans: One supplementary question:

Would the Solicitor General direct himself particularly to the statement by Mr. Murden that although he agreed to discuss his tactics he would not be specific about names and dates because he could still be liable to criminal action? Would the minister also determine whether in fact there are people who have been severely treated by Mr. Murden or others, and look back into the files of the Solicitor General’s office to complaints which I registered about two years ago with regard to the Burlington police actions -- I can’t remember the exact date -- to determine whether this is an on-going problem?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We will do that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Dealing with accusations of police brutalities and citizens’ complaints, when are we going to see that legislation dealing with citizen --

Mr. Speaker: No, the original question was very specific about an incident in Burlington.

Mr. Roy: That would apply to the Burlington citizens complaint bureau.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is why you lose cases.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

COFFEE COMPANY DISPUTE

Mr. Ashe: I have a question for the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Germa: Another setup.

Mr. Conway: Just remember to be diplomatic.

Mr. Wildman: Where is John Williams?

Mr. Ashe: There has been a rather lengthy strike that has been taking place in my riding, and I would just like to ask the minister what the current status is of the strike situation regarding the Sandra Instant Coffee Company in Ajax?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted, after a very difficult period of time, to announce that our disputes advisory committee was successful last evening and that, indeed, a settlement was reached which was ratified by both parties this morning.

Interjections,

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Are you sorry you told them?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Minister of Housing will come to order he can answer that question that was asked yesterday.

OHC LAND SALES

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the hon. member for Oshawa asked if I would tell him and the House how much money the ministry had received through the sale of land.

To date, we have marketed land for 717 residential units in eight municipalities, and, given the current market conditions, by the end of this fiscal year we expect to have marketed land for about 2,400 units. At this volume of residential land sales, together with any attendant commercial, industrial and institutional land sales, we would expect cash flow on the profit side during this fiscal year of about $1,432,000.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That surprises the member, doesn’t it?

Mr. Breaugh: No, it is nice to see that if we are going to speculate we can make some money from it. By way of supplementary, could the minister now clarify exactly how he will use that money for further housing programs? How does he intend to make that work?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As the hon. member knows, and I think fully endorses and supports, there are a number of fine programs within the ministry that require funding. This money is being realized on these land sales and will he used to apply to various housing programs --

Mr. Breaugh: Like what?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- some of which are doing an excellent job in his own riding at the present time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Unlike the member.

Mr. Breaugh: I know that the minister is a wonderful person and everything he does is wonderful, but could he be just a little more specific? Is he prepared to take that $1.4 million and reinvest that in the kind of employment programs, like we do with home renewal, that might assist us in the unemployment problems we are having this winter?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The money we would realize would be invested in such programs as home renewal and others which require substantial funding and that would, of course, assist in the employment problems throughout the province.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Maybe you could do better.

Mr. Lewis: Since, as I recall, in this House lust a week or two ago the minister was going to make what he calls a profit on the cash flow side of some $3 million in the Kitchener area alone, where is the ministry losing money, which is an unusual phenomenon?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think the hon. member realizes that in the case of Kitchener we were talking about a prolonged period of time for the sale of the total number of acres, which was 300-odd acres of land. This is in this one fiscal year.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary: Given that the minister has indicated he is not prepared to sell land at cost because he doesn’t want the initial buyer to be able to reap a profit by then selling it at market value, has he considered instead a forgiveable mortgage for that differential between the ministry’s cost and the market value, say spread over 15 or 20 years, which would guarantee that the original buyer would not be able to sell for a profit because the ministry could continue to hold that mortgage, and thus permit many more families to be able to afford a home of their own? Has he considered that as an alternative?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I have not.

Mr. Sweeney: Would he?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am prepared to consider any suggestions that seem to have some reason to them, yes.

LOTTERY GRANTS

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. I wonder if the minister could give us some background on the recent announcement that only those areas having district health councils will be eligible for provincial lottery funds to finance research and development projects?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The hon. member has put it into something of a different context than the way in which it was originally put. The $25 million from the lottery which is for health and environmental health-related research breaks into a number of areas, including capital construction, purchase or replacement of equipment, teaching positions in the health sciences centres, grants to the statutory foundations and grants to the non-statutory foundations, as well as an amount for the ministry’s own grants-in-aid program for health research. There is also an amount for the district health councils to carry out research in their respective areas for whatever purposes.

I am not quite sure the way the member took it, but I think he took it in a rather different sense than the very positive one that was intended.,

Mr. O’Neil: Likely I have, and I think a lot of other people across the province are doing so. As a supplementary, since the approach of the Health ministry has been that the establishment of these district health councils has been on a voluntary basis, does he not feel that the disbursement of lottery funds in this manner could have a detrimental effect on the voluntary aspect, and is that his intention?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am sorry, on the voluntary aspect of what? District health councils?

Mr. O’Neil: The establishment of health councils.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, I don’t. Not at all. For instance, as the hon. member may or may not know, in the Ottawa-Carleton region there is an extensive needs study under way under the auspices of the district health council in co-operation with the faculty of the University of Ottawa. There, the ministry is paying half the cost of that research, albeit not out of the provincial lottery funds.

In the future I can see that that kind of study, or looking at mental health problems, long-care needs or whatever, taken in the context of long-range region or county-wide planning, could well be considered for provincial lottery funding. I really don’t see that that’s in any way going to take away from the volunteerism aspect of the district health councils any more than I see it in any way diminishing the voluntary aspects of the efforts of the statutory and non-statutory research foundations.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: I wonder if I might ask the minister, though, about the Belleville-Trenton area. They are presently considering whether or not to establish a district health council; if they decide not to establish one, would those lottery funds be available to them?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Unless there is a non-statutory, disease-related research foundation in the area, there would be no body in the area that I am aware of -- a body that is as all-embracing as a district health council -- that would be eligible for grants. There are hospital planning groups and other kinds of planning groups, but all working separate one from the other. District health councils at least bring together people from a variety of backgrounds and look at the total health care needs of a county or of a region. The answer is, I don’t know that there would be any other groups that would be eligible.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary; the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. S. Smith: Would the minister make very clear in bus effort to make sure that this not be interpreted as some attempt to force people into district health councils, that where such bodies exist that can undertake needs studies, such as groups of hospitals voluntarily coming together or district psychiatric services groups, or for that matter municipal or regional governments without health councils -- where those bodies wish to use funds for such research into future needs, that they will have equal access to those lottery funds and not be restricted from it unless they happen to have the type of regional health council that the minister would happen to prefer.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The hon. member in his usual inimitable fashion has a way of twisting the truth around.

Mr. O’Neil: You are not giving a straight answer.

An hon. member: That’s not parliamentary language.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege, I wish to raise this matter in two ways. One is that his comment was derogatory to me in terms of saying I am usually twisting truth around. There is no evidence of this at all.

[2:45]

The second point is that I myself -- prior to being raised to such a lofty level to deal with people such as those opposite -- used to have a certain professional capacity in which we did a number of community-based studies of communities, and did so without a health council. I would like, therefore, a clear statement from the minister that it will not lust be regional health councils that will be entitled to those funds to do needs studies in their areas.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What is your matter of privilege?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is a little sensitive, I don’t know, perhaps due to past events, to my earlier comment, then I’m sincerely sorry for that. I was very careful in the way I put it. But obviously I’ve touched a nerve somewhere.

Mr. Roy: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: He hasn’t said that. He hasn’t said that.

Mr. Lewis: What is the meaning of twisted truth?

Mr. Speaker: There is quite a difference in a statement like that and accusing someone of telling a falsehood.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this particular allocation, if previous experience is anything to go by, I’m sure that even from the district health councils the requests will probably exceed the available funds.

Mr. Foulds: That is the important point, isn’t it?

Mr. S. Smith: Just say that any community can get needs studies done.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Why don’t you just button your lip and let somebody finish an answer?

Mr. S. Smith: Make a straight statement.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the member will be quiet, I will be glad to finish my answer. I’m trying to make it very clear that in no way am I trying to force any part of the province into adopting a district health council where the people don’t want it. I offer up the example in Perth and Huron counties where the steering committee by a vote of eight to seven said that it did not want a district health council at this time. My response to that was, “Fine. Maybe you, the people in that area, will look at it again in a few years’ time, but I’m not going to force it on you.”

My point earlier, which I think may have been missed, was that district health councils afford the opportunity for all aspects of health care to be considered in one forum, rather than different aspects of health care in isolation.

Mr. O’Neil: You are blackmailing us.

Mr. Conway: A teen-aged Darcy McKeough.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Absolute, unmitigated nonsense. If I am teenage, you are hardly past the fetus stage.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You are just jealous because youth is passing you by.

Mr. Lewis: Personally, I think you are both pre-pubescent.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Talking about ages, maybe somebody would try to act his around here.

HEALTH OF WORKERS AT RED LAKE

Mr. Mackenzie: To the Minister of Labour:

In view of the disturbing and tragic sequence of events in the case histories of the workers in the greater Red Lake area, which have been turned over to the minister, which indicate examinations which revealed nothing, yet one year later a worker is in the hospital having a lung removed, can the minister indicate if she has investigated the consistency and quality of the examinations and the various testing equipment being used in that district?

Hon. B. Stephenson: At the request of the union in that area, and much before that as well, we have been following this situation. There is an examination of the medical records of various individuals who have been made known to us. In addition to that we have been looking at all of the records that we’ve had of testing done in the area, in many specific work areas, in order to put all of the information together, so that we may have a meeting with the union and with the companies involved to provide all of the information to them and try to find solutions to the problems of health and safety in that area.

I have to tell you that we have been unable to contact the district director of the union for the past seven days in order to try to arrange the meeting. In his absence we have arranged alternative meetings which we hope will be satisfactory to him.

I gather that Mr. Cooke at this present time is in Russia. I didn’t know he was there and was unable to make contact with him. However, we are in the process of attempting to arrange that meeting either at the end of this week or the beginning of next week. I had hoped that it was going to be the beginning of this week but because of his absence we have not managed to do so at this time. That information will be placed clearly before the employees, the union and the employers, and we will have a discussion about finding solutions.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Could the minister refer to the initial part of the question from the member for Hamilton East about the testing that is available, because surely the case studies that she has been able to look at so far indicate a grave lack of diagnosis? After being steadily tested, apparently for a number of years, the worker is suddenly in hospital to have a lung removed after being given a clean bill of health a year previously.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would have to remind the hon. member that it is not unusual.

Human beings do not necessarily all react in the same way, and it is not unusual to find the development of a very serious illness within a relatively short period of time from a diagnosis of a reasonably clean bill of health. He and I have had friends or acquaintances who have had all the tests available for cardiac disease and they’ve proven to be perfectly fine, but then they’ve died of a coronary the next day. Unfortunately, medical science is not infallible and human beings are not machines that can be tested in exactly the same way constantly.

However, this is being investigated and as a result of the investigation the information will be placed before the group. I am happy to tell you that the meeting has been finalized. It will be Tuesday morning of next week at 10 o’clock.

Mr. Lewis: In Moscow. In Red Square.

ENROLMENT OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Education. With the reference to remarks the minister made this past summer with respect to the enrolment in teachers’ colleges, I wonder if he could help me reconcile these figures. In 1973, the student enrolment of the province was 1,361,000; in 1974, it was 1,340,000 -- that’s a drop of 20,000 -- and in 1975, it was 1,323,000 -- that’s a drop of almost another 20,000. In other words, in three successive years we see a drop in enrolment, and the minister’s own reports show that that drop in enrolment began in 1971 and continues to the present day. That’s one set of figures.

Mr. Speaker: This is not a question.

Mr. Sweeney: Yes, this is a question. I want a reconciliation, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to hear a question.

Mr. Sweeney: Will the minister reconcile these figures? In 1973, enrolment at teachers’ colleges was 1,780; in 1974, 2,229, an increase of 500 and in 1975, an increase to 3,300. How is it possible that the same time the enrolment of students --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This question should be directed to the order paper. Put it on the order paper.

Oral questions?

HORNEPAYNE TOWN CENTRE

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs: Could the minister indicate to the House the status of his ministry’s and the other ministries’ studies of the Hornepayne Town Centre and the government’s participation in that development? Could he also report what the government’s participation might be, and has a final decision been made?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as you know, my ministry has been actively involved in that particular development with the CNR and with Hallmark Hotels Ltd. As recently as last week, we advanced a small amount of money to the Hallmark Hotels people to take the next step, which is preparing the design plan on which tenders could be called. As the hon. member is aware, working drawings will not be prepared because of the time factor and the desire to get on with that project if it is approved in total. We felt that we had to take the next step in order to get some hard figures to deal with.

We hope to have those figures in our hands early in 1978. On the basis of those figures, we’ll be making a firm decision, positive or negative.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Could the minister indicate whether that means that once the design drawings are prepared the government is prepared to commit itself now to participation and tendering will then take place early in the summer or late spring next year?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think the principle is there and that the government has shown its interest to this point in time. There’s no question about that; we’ve put up our share. In fact, the first portion was shared on a three-part basis and the next phase was shared on an equal basis with CNR. That’s a sign of good faith but we can’t really commit ourselves on the entire project until we get some hard figures and some firm data to deal with.

PROVINCIAL GRANTS

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of the provincial Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware that the city of Windsor has been deprived of about $20 million in grants since the year 1973? What solution or what relief is he prepared to give to the city of Windsor. in the light of this unfairness, which he has admitted in a letter of August 8?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This is a matter which is under consideration.

Mr. B. Newman: Will the minister elaborate a little further on what type of consideration? Is the minister going to give an unconditional grant to the municipality?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, that is not part of the consideration. I have met with the mayor of Windsor on three different occasions and with his officials and we are reaching, I think, some agreement on facts. Whether solutions will he found, I simply don’t know.

Mr. Warner: You should consider resigning.

ROSS SHOULDICE

Mr. Martel: Has the Premier decided to order the chairman of the Commercial Registration Appeals Tribunal to reinstitute the inquiry into the actions of one Ross Shouldice, now that Mr. Shouldice is involved in selling real estate or handling real estate, without a licence I presume, in the Sudbury area under the name of Berosh Holdings and advertising his services in the local media?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I recall receiving a letter from the hon. member where he raised this question with me. He enclosed an ad. I think that is my recollection of his correspondence, which I always read very carefully. I noted that he signed it but didn’t add any PS though.

Mr. Martel: No, nor any BS either.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That was all above the signature.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to add that it wasn’t written by hand, thank heaven, or I might not have been able to read it. I have asked for a report on it and as soon as I have that report I will get the information to the hon. member.

PURCHASE OF ART OBJECTS

Mr. Stong: I have a question for the Attorney General. Is the Attorney General responsible for the priority, and which priority would allow $40,444 to be spent on art objects for the courthouse in Barrie, especially in view of the long list of cases that are unheard of -- unable to be heard and unheard of -- particularly when $40,000 is more than ample to pay the salary of a judge and provide new court space, particularly in Toronto and Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have no knowledge of any such expenditure and it would not come within my ministry. It perhaps would be a matter that might be directed to the Minister of Government Services.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I would like that question redirected to the Minister of Government Services. I also note that the Ministry of the Attorney General has its stamp on each item in each courthouse as well.

Mr. Speaker: You may redirect.

Mr. Stong: I would like to redirect this question to the Minister of Government Services. Is he responsible for setting the priority which would allow $40,000 to be spent on the Barrie courthouse on art objects when there is such a backlog of cases in Toronto and Hamilton and Ottawa, and which amount would be more than ample to pay the salary of a judge and appoint new court space?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I could have the question referred back to the Attorney General. The bulk of the question revolves around what is better -- art or a judge?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Can we have some order, please? The hon. Minister of Government Services has the floor.

Hon. Mr. McCague: To answer the half of the hon. member’s question that would come under Ministry of Government Services policy, when a courthouse is established, it is the policy to spend about half of one per cent of the cost of the building on art, and that normally is local art.

Mr. Stong: Is the Minister of Government Services responsible for setting that priority?

Interjections.

Mr. Stong: With 3,000 cases in the backlog, we’ve got $40,000 worth of art. People waiting in jail even.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This party has never been against the artists. Are you against Ontario artists?

Mr. Stong: People sitting in jail for eight months and we can go to look at pictures.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McCague: As to whether or not it’s policy, I’m not sure. I think that as well as the solicitors which the hon. member referred to in the first part of the question, the artists have to live also and it would be a sad state if we didn’t have them.

Mr. Lewis: Good for you. You are not a Philistine like all the rest of them.

COFFEE PRICING

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, if I could have the Premier’s attention.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You have it -- my undivided attention.

Mr. Swart: Is the Premier as indifferent to the high coffee prices in Ontario as his Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations? I hope the Premier is not, but if he is not, would he --

[3:00]

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Swart: -- instruct that minister --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Swart: -- to go back and do a thorough inquiry into coffee pricing --

Mr. Eaton: Quit using the imported stuff and start using mill.

Mr. Swart: -- something more than just asking the coffee companies for their explanation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Welland-Thorold really answered the question himself when he recognized that I certainly wouldn’t be indifferent to any situation. I wouldn’t be indifferent to the hon. member, although the temptation is great on occasion.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He was indifferent to us yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He certainly was, I think, very indifferent yesterday.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Forced the vote and then wasn’t here. Shameful.

Mr. Ruston: That’s right. He was calling the radio station back home.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I certainly am not indifferent if that helps the hon. member. I would say though, on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, that probably a lot of us would be healthier if we were to substitute a portion of the coffee we drink with milk, which would also assist the dairy industry, and be healthier in the process. I’m not advocating that to the hon. member, but that is an alternative that is available.

Mr. Swart: Would I be right in assuming from the Premier’s reply that he’s not asking the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to make any further investigation and, although far be it from me to make the controversy in your cabinet any worse, but because the Minister of Correctional Services is quoted as saying --

Hon. B. Stephenson: You don’t have to buy it.

Mr. Swart: -- with regard to coffee prices, “When I say ripoff I know what ripoff means,” would the Premier direct him, by special assignment, to make an inquiry of his own?

Mr. Breithaupt: That is since he got into the cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I certainly don’t want the hon. member to really feel that there are ever any differences of opinion in the executive council of this province.

Mr. Wildman: Tell us about the drinking age.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the hon. member wants to raise the question of the drinking age I think it would be more appropriate tomorrow afternoon. If the hon. member for Renfrew North is suggesting that we substitute alcohol for coffee, that I don’t recommend. The Treasurer reminds me that there are grapes in the Peninsula. That’s something else.

Mr. Conway: And baloney in Brampton.

Mr. Ruston: And a lot of corn in Chatham too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There’s corn too.

I have not directed the minister. I find that the ministers of the Crown in this province really demonstrate great initiative. They have the capacity to react to these matters and I have complete confidence in the minister of that ministry in dealing with these issues in a way that will be, I think, ultimately acceptable to the hon. member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr. Deans: This is very boring.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

REPORTS

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

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

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March

31, 1978:

Ministry of Industry and Tourism:

Ministry administration program $3,230,006

Policy and priorities program 2,017,000

Industry and trade development program 9,682,000

Tourism development program 10,556,000

Small business development program 4,047,000

Ontario Place Corporation program 2,941,000

Industrial incentives and development program 25,967,000

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Philip from the standing administration of justice committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr1,

An Act respecting the Township of Tay;

Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting Circle R Boys Ranch;

Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting Fuller-Austin of Canada Limited;

Bill Pr22,

An Act respecting the Borough of Etobicoke;

Bill Pr23,

An Act respecting Matol Holdings Limited;

Bill Pr24,

An Act respecting Niagara Institute for International Studies;

Bill Pr31, Au Act respecting Garnet Holdings Limited;

Bill Pr32,

An Act respecting Stanley Starr Limited;

Bill Pr33,

An Act respecting Kedna Enterprises Limited.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Mr. Speaker: I understand that we have nine private bills to be introduced for first reading, and in order that as much time as possible may be devoted to the important business this afternoon, would it be agreeable to the House for the mover of the bills to send the bills directly to the table and they will be deemed to have been introduced and read for the first time? Is that agreeable?

Agreed.

The following bills received first reading:

Pr2,

An Act respecting the Township of Dover.

Pr4,

An Act respecting the County of Peterborough.

Pr5,

An Act respecting the Village of Port McNicoll.

Pr9,

An Act respecting the City of Sault Ste. Marie.

Pr12,

An Act respecting certain lands in the Township of Casgrain.

Pr14,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Pr18,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Pr29,

An Act respecting the Township of East Zorra-Tavistock.

Pr35,

An Act respecting Shore and Horwitz Construction Company Limited.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, before calling the motion, I would like to indicate on behalf of the House leaders how we would propose that the members agree to share time on the debate on the motion in the name of the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa).

We would ask that it be agreed that the time between the calling of the order and 5.50 p.m. be shared equally by the parties, that is one third each. We leave it to each party whip to arrange his speakers in such a way that none of them is deprived of reasonable time, but that the last of those speakers for each party not go beyond the time limit for his party. We would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you put the proposal to the House for consent; and if agreed that you name the minute at which the debate starts, and as well that you terminate the speech of a member whose party’s time has elapsed.

Mr. Speaker: As you know, there is nothing to be guided by in the standing orders with regard to the time allocation for emergency debate, but it seems to have universal approval that the time be allocated one-third for each party. If that is the wish of the House, we will attempt at the table here to indicate when the time of each party has expired, in co-operation with the whips, if that is agreeable to all parties.

Mr. Germa moved private member’s motion No. 11:

Resolution: That the government of Ontario has had before it numerous reports with recommendations that deal with the orderly planning of resource industries and resource industry communities in northern Ontario, and had been unable or unwilling to develop a viable strategy based on these recommendations; and as the lack of such a strategy has been primarily responsible for the current economic problems in the Sudbury basin; and as more than two weeks have now passed since the announced layoffs at Inco and the government has failed to produce any initiatives to deal with the proposed layoff of 2,800 persons and the adverse effect this will have, not only on the economy of Sudbury but on employment in other service and consumer areas; therefore, this government does not enjoy the confidence of the House.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, the motion which I have placed on the order paper indicates that this government does not enjoy the confidence of the House. The reason for entering this motion on the order paper, as recited earlier in the motion, is that the government is unwilling to develop a viable strategy to ensure the viability of northern Ontario, and it has also failed to produce any initiatives to deal with the proposed layoff of 2,800 persons in the Sudbury area.

So we have two considerations, both the long-term failure of the government to deal with the problems of northern Ontario and Sudbury specifically, and the short-term failure of the government to deal with the events which are upon us. It is, then, a natural progression that a motion of no confidence should ensue when I have heard so many voices raised in objection to the actions of Inco in their announced intentions to terminate the employment of so many men, any action which is going to wreak havoc with the economy of an entire area and going to have a severe impact on the entire province.

I recall that the Liberal leader (Mr. S. Smith), when the incident was first before the House, made certain demands upon the government. He said, in a very strident voice, that this government should use its full weight and go to Inco and demand that they cease production of minerals in Indonesia and Guatemala. The government has failed to meet the request of the Leader of the opposition and I would, therefore, assume that he too will express no confidence in the government, because it certainly has not met his demands.

Certain other opinions have been expressed by people across the province of Ontario -- and I could go through a long list of people who have expressed lack of confidence in this government. I go to a person who is known to the government of Ontario -- the mayor of Sudbury, a Mr. Jim Gordon, a former Conservative candidate for office for this government. Mr. Gordon expressed his feelings in a very resounding voice at a rally in Sudbury two weeks ago, on a Sunday afternoon, with 2,000 people in attendance. It was a spontaneous rally in objection to the action of Inco and the lack of action by the government. Mr.

Jim Gordon, this very good Tory and a former candidate said: “Nail this government to the wall and shut them down.” I think that this motion addresses itself to the demand of the mayor of Sudbury that this government be nailed to the wall and that they be shut down.

[13:15]

The first area in the motion deals with the unwillingness of the government to develop a strategy. The government did express some interest in strategy in 1970 when it brought in a series of reports across the province on the various areas concerned. Unfortunately, the reports addressed themselves to particular areas; when we put the report together we find we have conflicts in the various reports.

I refer firstly to the report tabled in 1970 by the Treasury on the Toronto-centred region Design for Development. On page 4, one of the stated objectives in the report was, and I quote: “The Toronto-centred region probably can increase its economic role in processing resources which currently come from northern Ontario.”

That statement is certainly not in favour of the stated objectives which we can find in a further report having to do with northeastern Ontario. I think it is this statement in the Toronto-centred region report which has been the problem facing northern Ontario for the past 50 years.

This is in direct conflict with Design for Development, 1970, Northeastern Ontario Region. In that report there were 82 objectives recited, 82 things which should happen in order to ameliorate the lack of development and to enhance the lifestyle of people in northern Ontario. Twenty-three of these objectives were rated as “in the high category.” We cannot go through the 82 objectives, but I have pulled out of them 10 particular areas which the government should have addressed itself to. We will see whether some seven years later the government has addressed itself to reaching any of those objectives.

The first objective was to reduce outward migration. If we look at the population figures of northern Ontario, we find that the increase in growth as compared to the provincial average is not comparable whatsoever. In fact, the growth in northern Ontario is somewhat less than one per cent. It is somewhat in line with the growth in the eastern provinces which have long been recognized as a very depressed area.

The second objective was to increase female employment opportunities in northern Ontario. We know that female participation in the work force in northern Ontario at present is running at 35 per cent,

whereas the participation of females across the province is at 44 per cent. The government has not addressed itself to that objective.

“Increased employment opportunities for skilled and educated people”: It just has not addressed itself to that, because it has not corrected the imbalance in northern Ontario which results from our economy being based on resource extraction industries.

“Increased employment opportunities in manufacturing”: I think it is indicative that the government has not moved into that area; otherwise we wouldn’t have this calamity falling upon Sudbury, and Sudbury is the biggest community in northern Ontario. Yet when there is a layoff in the one prime industry, it throws the whole economic balance upside down.

“Increased industrial diversification”: That also speaks to the lack of manufacturing.

“Equalized opportunity for native people”:

“Reduce housing costs for low-income households”: We know very well, without sending another great group of people up there to study it, that housing costs in northern Ontario are just beyond the means of the average individual.

“Reduce traffic fatalities”: The statistics coming out even today indicate that the hazards on the highways in northern Ontario are extreme compared with the rest of the province. Part of that, of course, is because of our geography, part of it is because of our weather, but most of it, I think, is because of lack of proper highway facilities in northern Ontario.

“Reduce occupational accidents and fatalities”: A recent report indicated that the hazards faced by a miner in northern Ontario are seven times as great as the hazards faced by a policeman. Police are recognized as a high-risk profession and yet in mining, which is our main source of employment in the north, miners have to suffer hazards seven times greater than those faced by police.

“Reduce property damage by fire”: My friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) has addressed himself to this problem several times in this session, and the only response from the government is that they would do something about installing smoke detectors in northern Ontario,

I think it’s evident that the government has failed to meet any of the objectives. That is just my opinion. There are other people with opinions in northern Ontario, and I refer now to the response of the Chamber of Commerce to the northeastern Ontario development strategy.

Mr. Martel: Let the government disclaim its friends now.

Mr. Turner: That’s all you’ve got, eh? Pretty shallow.

Mr. Germa: The Sudbury Chamber of Commerce, of course, is not a radical socialist organization, and I just have to put on the record some of the statements by the friends of government and how they feel about this government.

On the very first page they say: “We are disappointed, disillusioned and impatient with the provincial planning program that has accomplished little in a full decade of existence.”

That’s their opening shot. On page 1:

“The northern Ontario regional strategy is devoid of any strategy of development -- physical economic or social. It represents the pinnacle of intellectual bankruptcy of the southern establishment in even analysing the problems of the north, let alone dealing with them effectively.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You fellows wrote it; that’s why.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: They helped to kill Reed.

Mr. Germa: “The only way to deal with northern Ontario regional strategy is to let it terminate as an expensive receptacle of dust until it glides gracefully or otherwise into oblivion.”

Mr. Martel: That’s what they think about the government’s plan.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Remember Reed?

Mr. Germa: “The fundamental problem with northern Ontario regional strategy can be summed up as the troika of noes -- no strategy, no analysis, no programs; therefore, no use.”

Mr. Conway: Governor Bernier is disturbed.

Mr. Germa: I’d like to give you just a couple more quotes, Mr. Speaker. On page 6 of Profile in Failure: “Having failed dismally to deal with the substantive issues, the NORS has resorted to restating motherhood objectives in the hope that somehow innocuous objectives can substitute for n reasoned strategy. The fundamental flaw of NORS is the absence of any strategy of development.”

On page 7: “There is, however, a secret strategy in the NORS. The secret strategy can best be characterized as the colonial exploitation of the natural resources of the north for the benefit of the south. On careful evaluation, one has to conclude that the NORS use the north as a supplier of raw materials for the golden horseshoe and as a market for its manufactured goods and services.

That is the opinion expressed by the friends of government. The government is losing friends at a very rapid rate.

The

summary of Profile in Failure is such that they see that there is a lack of strategy owing to the fact that there was not a proper analysis or understanding of the problem in northern Ontario or even an understanding of the opportunities which might be there. When you do not have a strategy, consequently you don’t get a program.

The paramount recommendation in Profile in Failure was that the government must move to diversify the population from the golden horseshoe area.

To speak to the second statement in the motion, the lack of a short-term policy by the government of Ontario, the only thing that we’ve got from this government is the promise that they are going to erect a $10-million office tower in Sudbury.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You don’t want it? You are against it? Are you for it or against it? Don’t ride two horses. The same old hypocrisy that I have heard for 20 years.

Mr. Laughren: Don’t be stupid. That is downright silly; go back to sleep.

Mr. Germa: We appreciate the $10 million which is going to be expended, but I will ask the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) how can $10 million replace the loss of $69 million in wages? The $10 million just doesn’t fit the need when we are losing $69 million in wages.

Mr. Mattel: When $69 million is lost in one year, you dummies offer us an old building.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I hope Hansard has got that -- an old building.

Mr. Germa: I am going to terminate my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by making a demand of the Premier of this province (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Conway: You will make a Teddy Roosevelt out of him.

Mr. Germa: I demand that the Premier of the province take steps to reverse the decision of Inco to lay off 2,800 employees on January 31. He should understand that this is a classic example that even the strongest union on the North American continent is not strong enough to deal with multi-national corporations and that the workers of this province have to have the strength, the backing and the weight of this government to protect them from multi-nationals which have no concern whatsoever except for the bottom line on the balance sheet.

How is the Premier going to do this? I am even going to give the Premier a recipe on how he can lend his weight to have this objective of terminating the layoffs. I would ask the Premier of the province to get himself a hall of steel wool. Then let him get himself a pair of knitting needles and knit himself a barbed-wire overcoat. He will put on this barbed-wire overcoat and go into the board rooms of Inco with his elbows up.

He will say to Inco: “Reverse your decision or we will take those leases and grants of ore bodies back into public ownership and renegotiate new leases with you so that it will have the effect of having government input into bow these resources are depleted in the future.”

Mining companies are no longer granted outright lifetime grants for the ore body.

I think these ancient leases and deeds or titles which men has have to be terminated in order that the ore body be exploited properly over the next 50 years. It is not my intention to have 2,800 men standing around doing nothing.

I will suggest how those 2,800 workers can be used. The mines and plants of Inco in Sudbury are in a deplorable state. If we look at the death and accident rate at Inco we see that it has one of the most dismay rates, not only in Ontario but across Canada. I would propose those 2,800 men whom we will not be laying off then be put to work cleaning up the plants and the mines which are presently coming down around them.

I have an estimate that putting proper lighting in the mines in Sudbury is a job worth $40 million. That is how far behind Inco is in maintenance of its plants. We know from tests that 50 per cent of the deaths and injuries in a mine are as a result of lack of lighting.

I just ask you how you and I could function in this room if the lights were out. We would adjourn the debate.

Mr. Conway: Oh, no. This place functions much better in the dark.

Mr. Germa: Yet we are asking people to work in the dark. And that, I think, is the minimum demand I can make on the Premier of the province.

Mr. Martel: Here is the greatest apologist for the mining companies.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the motion as tabled by the hon. member for Sudbury. I am, however, pleased to discuss the points and the issues raised in that particular resolution.

I would say before I begin my remarks that I suspect this is a grandstand show by the third party. The list of speakers has just been given to me. For your information, Mr. Speaker, the member for Sudbury is the leadoff speaker. The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) is speaking on behalf of the NDP later on. Then the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) will speak and then the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). The windup speaker will be the defunct leader who is there now.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is part of the leadership race we will see in the next two or three or four weeks ahead of us. They are getting their feel, they are putting their feet on the ground and trying to appeal to northern Ontario.

They have caught up with you, fellows. You are wasting your time, they know where you stand.

[3:30]

Mr. Laughren: Go ahead, apologize. Give us the Inco line, Leo.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Many of the issues that were raised in the resolution have already been debated in this House during the emergency debate a few days ago. One thing that became abundantly clear in that debate was the fact that the company’s problem was one of an international nature, one of offshore markets, one of world demand declining considerably.

Mr. Wildman: It is not that we don’t have confidence in Inco, it is you guys.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Just before coming to the House this afternoon I learned from my staff that a mining company in Australia is about to go bankrupt and the French producers in New Caledonia have cut back their nickel production substantially. So we have a situation which we all recognize. Those of us who have the depth to understand the problem of the mining industry in Sudbury, understand that it is one of a world-wide nature.

Mr. Laughren: They really did right for you though, Leo.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think on this point no one in this Legislature should underestimate the concerns of the Ontario government with regard to the hundreds of employees who may be laid off by Inco, both in this province and in the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Germa: Do something then, do something.

Mr. Warner: You have done nothing.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No one should underestimate our concern. We are as concerned and worried about that situation as any party in this Legislature.

Mr. Cassidy: We’d like to see some action.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No one party, no one government, has all the answers to their particular problems.

Mr. Wildman: What about long-term planning?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is no easy solution to that problem. But I think that we can be encouraged, because there are continuing discussions going on between the company and the union; and certainly they are very constructive discussions, very positive ones.

We’re all very pleased as well to hear of the positive and the practical suggestions that have been put forward by the Sudbury committee themselves. Sometimes when I hear members of the third party speak of the Inco decision I have to question if they are fully knowledgeable of what theft union leaders are discussing and putting forward to the company in those discussions. It leaves a question mark in my mind, because I don’t think they are totally informed.

Mr. Wildman: We are not talking about moo, we are talking about the government.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, since the announcement concerning the massive lay.. off s, the government has acted very positively. We have had meetings with union leaders, with municipal leaders in all sections of the province. We have attended joint meetings with the federal government, municipal governments, labour meetings, to explore every possible avenue to deal with this situation.

The Premier recently announced a special cabinet committee to deal with the short-term and the long-term problems facing the Sudbury basin. In addition to that we are also looking at the long-term economic future of mining in this country, and of course our deliberations will have some effect on mining in the country as a whole.

Mr. Wildman: What have you been doing for seven years?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: While these things are being quickly put in place, the government has moved in another direction. As the hon. members have correctly pointed out, we announced a $10 million construction program to complete the provincial building in Sudbury. Certainly this will add, on a short-term basis at least, some needed employment in that area

I realize there are many positive forward steps that should be taken, and they will be taken. But as the hon. member for Sudbury quoted the mayor of Sudbury, Mayor Jim Gordon, I think it’s only right that we put on the record his comments that were quoted in the Sudbury Star on November 4. After the Premier’s announcement that there would be a special cabinet committee established, that there would be a go-ahead on the provincial building, and that there would be special funding to the industrial development study group in Sudbury, this is what Jim Gordon said -- and it was headlined. “Natural and Welcome Move a Symbol of Faith the Province Has Shown in Our Area.”

The reaction of Doug Frith in the same paper: “The project will bolster the region’s economy over the next two years when we need it most. It shows the province has confidence in our area. Important achievements for the Sudbury committee.” Those are the kinds of the positive things that are coming out.

Mr. Martel: A $69-million loss in salaries in one year, and you’re giving us $5 million.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, don’t be swayed by the attitudes and some of the comments that are coming from that group, because they’re not identical to what’s being said back home in a place like Sudbury. They are a very positive, sincere group up there and they want to do something.

Mr. Germa: Nail you to the wall, Jim Gordon said.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would like to review the status of Design for Development. I’m sure many members here will have known that over the past several weeks and several months and several years --

Mr. Martel: Seven.

Hon. Mr. Bender: -- we have been meeting with various groups, dealing with a number of reports and putting together a design strategy for the northeast and the northwest. As you are fully aware, Mr. Speaker, in 1970 the government of Ontario adopted Design for Development: Phase 2 for the northwest and, of course, these recommendations are being implemented right now. In fact, that particular Design for Development is being written at the present time, so that we’re in phase three of Design for Development in the northwest. Of the 70-odd recommendations, actions have been taken on at least 69 of them.

Mr. Foulds: The Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) has announced phase three. Phase three has already been announced. This is phase-out four.

Mr. Conway: They’re going to turn Minaki into --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Regarding the northeast, a number of interim documents are in the final strategy report and, as members of this House will remember, it was tabled in the Legislature in April 1976.

Mr. Cassidy: And promptly forgotten by your government.

Hon. Mr. Bender: Since then it has gone through a number of discussions with public and industry sections all over northeastern Ontario. We have amendments for it, we have amendments in our hands now.

Mr. Foulds: Why did you do all that secretly?

Hon. Mr. Bender: We’re discussing it. We’re looking at it from the government point of view.

Mr. Cassidy: You’re looking uneasy.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: These are being very closely reviewed and, of course, will be included in the final document.

Mr. Foulds: Why did you have that review process in secret?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have not waited for the dotting of the final i’s before taking action on development in the northwest and the northeast.

Mr. Cassidy: You’ve already decided to delay.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, we have taken some positive action on a number of fronts. I’d just like to run over a few of those for you, Mr. Speaker.

An hon. member: It will be a short run.

Hon. Mr. Bender: Transportation is a typical example; we consider this to be a major contributing factor to the economic base and the economic future of all of northern Ontario. Line ministries, of course, are doing their job in providing the necessary facilities and doing the work that will improve transportation corridors throughout the entire north. As an example, Highway 144 linking Sudbury and Timmins is well on its way to completion.

Mr. Martel: Thirty-three years in the making!

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Fine, but it’s done.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: To give another example, there is the highway from White River to Hornepayne. Those are just two examples.

Mr. Germa: How wide is that road?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Right across the north, for those of us who live there, the transportation corridors have improved immensely and they will continue to improve.

Mr Martel: You’re unbelievable.

Mr. Conway: You’re creating certain difficulties for a certain member over there.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As members of this Legislature, another aspect of transportation we can take pride in, of course, is the air transportation program that this government has come forward with and implemented and which is now recognized as one of the finest regional carriers in all of Canada. Through the norOntair service, which many of these members use on a regular basis, we serve 16 communities across northern Ontario. In fact, while in 1971 we carried only 500 passengers, up to September 1977 that figure was over 7,800.

We provide a full service of airline flights between a number of local centres, with good connections to regional airlines on the main traffic hubs, In 1978 we will be adding two more centres to the 16 that I have already mentioned -- Geraldton and Terrace Bay.

Mr. Conway: That won’t help Inco, will it?

Mr. Martel: That really does a lot for employment, doesn’t it?

Mr. Lupusella: How many jobs?

Mr. Foulds: Tell us how many permanent jobs?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In the field of transportation, under our airstrip development program we have constructed 12 airstrips in the remote areas of northern Ontario, two are under construction and six more airstrips are being planned’. Nine more have been requested by Treaty No. 9 and they are currently under review.

In the field of municipal airports -- that’s over and above the remote airstrip development program -- 10 airports have been upgraded and two airports are under construction. In the fields of highway transportation and air transportation, things are moving ahead in northern Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: Most of them straight out of the north.

Hon. Mr. Bender: Another area of major concern to all of us in northern Ontario is the regional priority budget. This is a fund that has been given to the Ministry of Northern Affairs --

Mr. Germa: It’s a community tap.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- which is an amount of money over and above the regular normal spending of line ministries. As an example of this particular program, we are assisting with the infrastructure development at Timmins in the form of a $12 million sewer and water project; a project for sewer and water facilities at Walden Industrial Park; the development of an industrial park, $3.5 million --

Mr. Martel: Fifty million dollars in the Oshawa area.

Mr. Cassidy: How much for Highway 401?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: At Thunder Bay alone, there is $28 million for the development of new infrastructure.

Mr. Conway: What kind of a check-mark have you got for Grassy Narrows?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The Kimberly-Clark impact area, taking in Geraldton, Longlac and Nakina, over $12 million is being spent. We haven’t forgotten the smaller communities of the north either, such as Kapuskasing, Cochrane, Parry Sound, Blind River --

Mr. Lewis: What have you done for Blind River?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- Gore Bay, Chapleau and all across the northeast; even in Cobalt where the government responded within a matter of hours to the disaster that occurred there. For once the government was there, on the spot, to make some immediate decisions.

Mr. Martel: For once!

Mr. Samis: That’s in Hansard now.

Mr. Lewis: That’s in Hansard now, you can’t change it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s not that often we have a fire of that magnitude. I have to point out to the hon. members that it was a disaster and I hope that all members of this Legislature applauded the action of the government in that particular case. I’m sure they did.

Mr. S. Smith: If they are going to have a fire they have it just before an election.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In the northwest, action has been taken under the regional priority budget. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition would go up to northern Ontario once in a while he would know what’s going on. There is massive development happening up there. But we don’t see him, he spends all his time in southern Ontario.

Ninety per cent of the land mass is north of the French River. Only 10 per cent of the population lives there but we’re alive and we’re well and we’re growing.

In the northwest, action has been taken at Kenora, Dryden, Ignace, Ear Falls, Red Lake, Sioux Lookout and Schreiber. Since 1974, under the regional priority budget, the government has spent over $90 million in the economic development and the infrastructure planning and development of communities in northwestern and northeastern Ontario.

In addition, the Treasurer stated on May 12 of this year that other funds are being channelled into the northeast. I quote from that statement: “Sudbury now receives annual payments of $7.6 million as part of the government special support grant to northern municipalities.”

He goes on to say: “The NODC, in 1976, loaned some $21 million to the manufacturing and tourist establishments in the northern region.”

Mr. Martel: It is Utopia.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think one of the major steps forward was when he said: “We have created a Ministry of Northern Affairs to improve the co-ordination of our programs and to give the north a bigger voice in government deliberation.” That was a very important step.

Mr. Foulds: And what have you done on this issue? Nothing, you have done absolutely nothing; you haven’t taken any initiative.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In the field of mining tax, a group over there advocated the nationalization of our resources. You know what that would have done. I ask you, what would that have done to the world-market situation?

Mr. Foulds: It would have put you out of a job.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Would that have increased our sales to the United States and the European common market?

Mr. Laughren: Is that a question he is asking, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, it’s not. Nor is it a statement.

Mr. Germa: You’ve spent $10 million in the last 10 years.

Mr. Speaker; Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: On the process of mining tax, I want to quote from the Treasurer’s statement when he said:

We built in the incentive to further process raw materials and the incentive provided was the highest in Canada, even higher than in southern Ontario. The economic benefits are there to see. The record is as clear as crystal. Texasgulf has announced a $300 million capital expenditure program in which it gives full credit to the mining tax incentive as an important part of that decision. Inco was greatly influenced by the new tax system in its decision to construct a new coinage mill in Sudbury rather than in the United States.”

Mr. Martel: Then they lost 2,800 people.

Mr. Germa: Yes, and what about Falconbridge?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: And listen to what Grubb, the former chairman of Inco, said:

Mr. Lewis: Grubb, they booted him out.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: “Recent technical innovation, along with tax incentives provided by the Ontario government to encourage further processing of metals in northern Ontario, now make this type and scale of project feasible. These two decisions alone will produce 2,225 new jobs and also, of course, a new mining tax system because it's practical and realistic.’

Mr. Lewis: Where are they?

Mr. Germa: They lost 4,300 jobs.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I realize I may be running out of time, but I just want to close on a personal note. It’s something that’s very close and dear to me, as one who has lived and worked for the north all of my life.

Mr. Lewis: Go on, Leo. Minaki Lodge -- do you want to talk about that?

Hon. MT. Bernier: Yes, and I’ll touch on Minaki Lodge before I’m finished.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I’m sure you will.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’ve worked on five or six elections. I’ve listened to the people of the north and know what the people of the north really want. But I get sick and tired, I get disgusted; I really get upset with the hypocritical approach of the third party in this House and what they’re trying to do to those of us who live in northern Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: We are fed up with your lack of action.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We saw what happened in the last election; we saw as northerners. We flushed them I out, don’t worry. We know that we were being used to garner votes in southern Ontario. We know that Minaki Lodge was used for a purpose.

Mr. Foulds: How many votes did you get in the northern part of your riding?

[3:45]

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We know that Reed Paper was used for that purpose. We know what you did to Matachewan; all those jobs, all those jobs. They are yours. You carry that load to the people of the province of Ontario, carry that message across northern Ontario and see what they do to you. You lost three seats on June 9, and if you carry on that same approach you will be wiped out in the north. I guarantee that if you keep that same approach.

Mr. Lewis: There has never been so much claptrap in this House as in the last five minutes. You are so riddled with guilt you don’t know how to handle it, Leo.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I represent an area that’s very dependent on the mining industry, and I refer to the Red Lake-Balmertown-Cochenour area. Through the years my father worked in the Howey gold mine. He knows what it’s like.

Mr. Germa: Where did you work?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You are not the only people who worked in the gold mines. He worked there back in the 1930s. He knows what it’s like. That mine is closed today, as is MacKenzie Island as is Cochenour Willans, as is Madsen, as is Hasaga, as is Starratt Olsen. They are all closed.

Mr. Cassidy: That is what we are saying.

Mr. Martel: I thought we were losing 2,800 jobs.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That community, Red Lake, was fighting for an economic base, for an existence to keep the people there and working.

Mr. Cassidy: So what are you putting up as alternatives? There are no alternatives.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: And what did the NDP do when they had an opportunity to use the normal resources of this province, of their area? What did you people do? Where did you stand? Where did the member for Fort William stand?

Mr. Foulds: You wanted to mine that timber the very same way that you mined out those gold mines. What did you leave there?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member for Lake Nipigon had the guts to stand up and support the rest of this party here.

Mr. Foulds: You didn’t have the guts to come to Red Lake when I was there and you were invited two weeks ahead of time. You didn’t have the guts to come to Red Lake and face me on a platform.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He was there. The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) knows. He reads the north. He knows where he stands. They want jobs. They want economic development. They also want environmental protection, and we built that into the memorandum of understanding with the Reed Paper company.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, sure.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It was there. It was there, Mr. Speaker. It was there.

Mr. Cassidy: Why did you set up the commission then?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The people of Red Lake will never forget what that particular party did to their opportunity to have a long-term viable economic base. They will never forget.

Mr. Lewis: One day you will lose and it will be a great thing for Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The same thing can be said for the areas of Geraldton and Kirkland Lake. They ride two horses --

Mr. Lewis: You are a disgrace to politics, Leo Bernier; the only member of the cabinet who is a disgrace.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that day is going to come to an end. You can’t ride both horses.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I ask them to join the bandwagon, get on the team that will develop northern Ontario and vote against this particular resolution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Germa: Everybody is leaving.

Mr. Foulds: Mine out the timber like you have mined out the ore.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with today is surely first and foremost a human problem. We have to deal with the fact, sometimes forgotten I guess in the heat of partisan politics, that a great many young people mostly, because they are people with less seniority, a great many people who have just started young families, who have perhaps in many instances just put a down payment on a home which will now be virtually impossible to sell, a great many of these people are now wondering what our economy, what our system, what our province, what our way of life means if they have to somehow pick up and lose whatever little they have put into their homes and so on.

They now have to try to find another way of earning their living and supporting their wives and children. We are very deeply concerned about the fact that these people seem to be the forgotten people. There was a great flurry about them, there was a great number of headlines about these 2,800 people, and somehow when the numbers get large enough sometimes the human story is forgotten, but I am very concerned about these people.

It’s obvious to me from the examination of what happened in the world nickel market that some jobs are likely to be lost. It is not obvious to me that all 2,800 have to be lost. In fact, it’s not obvious to me at all that the pattern of investment of Inco has been in the best interests of Ontario.

I feel that this government has in some ways very seriously been negligent of its duty in keeping the multi-national corporations, be they allegedly Canadian multi-national or foreign multi-national, it seems to me it has been very negligent in its duty to keep these multi-national corporations under some form of proper relationship to the people of Ontario.

I would have to say, just perhaps as an aside to my comment in the House the other day, that some of our branch plants in this country which don’t export in competition with their multi-national parent in other countries are really not doing a great service here and are doing us a great disservice in many ways, as is shown in the case of Anaconda Brass and Copper.

Mr. Cassidy: We can’t stand that hypocrisy coming out again.

It is a pity that this government seems not to understand that. By continuing to foster multi-national operations here, branch plants, without insisting on certain guarantees that the interests of Ontario are put before the interests of international shareholders, in that way it seems to me the government has been very negligent in its duties.

I also feel it is quite unacceptable that the government has been caught by surprise in this matter. Everyone who follows the financial pages knows that the nickel industry was in trouble. Everyone knows after the Port Colborne layoffs that there were serious problems in the international metal markets related to nickel. All the government has to do is read the financial pages to find it out, let alone bother to call the company.

I met with the company some weeks before the layoff and they certainly didn’t tell me about the layoff, but I sensed there were problems in the field. I met with the unions some weeks before the layoff and they knew there was something up, they knew something was coming. I think it is unacceptable that this government was caught by surprise.

There is a more serious matter and it is a matter which, frankly, is referred to in the motion put forward by the hon. member for Sudbury. It is the fact that during the 34 years of stewardship that the resource sector has been under this Tory government, there has been opportunity after opportunity wasted and squandered when we might have been developing a resource strategy and when we might have been working on some means of diversifying wherever possible. It is .not always possible in every town and village, but wherever possible we should have been working on diversifying the economies of our resource towns.

I, for one, am somewhat new to politics perhaps, but I am very saddened at the fact that those who have been in charge of our lives and governments at every level have failed to develop a proper resource strategy, a proper economic strategy for that matter, an industrial strategy for Ontario and for Canada. We have drifted and we continue to drift.

I am profoundly distressed. I don’t know how one can speak to some of these workers who have lost their jobs in Port Colborne and Sudbury and be able to explain to them how this country and this province can be proceeding, seemingly so comfortable, and seemingly so carefree without a proper strategy to cope with the futures of these young people, and for that matter their children to follow.

I’m concerned that this government has not shown much analysis in terms of the world market. They seem to have been caught, as I say, by surprise.

Nor have they been willing to stand up to Inco and insist that if there is bad news as a consequence of overexpansion and as a consequence of an unanticipated slowdown in the world’s capital goods requirement which has hurt the nickel industry, that this bad news be spread about all of Inco’s operations, especially considering the moral obligation that is owed to the Sudbury basin, since the money of the company has been made here with the resources in the Sudbury basin in Ontario and yet it has been transferred in gigantic quantities to other parts of the world for investment elsewhere.

Why the bad news cannot be shared with those parts of the world is something which I believe is a disgrace to Ontario and also to the multi-national corporation involved, and I have told them so personally, as you well know, Mr. Speaker.

I tell you, furthermore, that there are a number of proposals the union has made which are excellent proposals and which could at least mitigate to some extent the blow which has fallen upon these people and upon the community of Sudbury. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that in Forbes Magazine, a financial magazine, in the issue of October 1, there is a very intelligent and penetrating analysis of the Inco company. It indicates there that Sudbury can produce nickel competitively and could beat the price of the Indonesian and Guatemalan operations of Inco, but it is in Inco’s interest not to let Sudbury compete.

We want Sudbury to be permitted to compete and we insist that those who represent Sudbury’s interests permit Sudbury to compete in the world markets. If, in fact, Indonesia and Guatemala could produce it more cheaply, then I might begin to understand the situation with Inco, because after all if not Inco, it would be the Swiss or the Germans or some other group that would develop those resources and sell in competition with Sudbury.

But Sudbury can compete. My only concern is that Inco isn’t letting Sudbury compete. I believe we have to have a government that is strong enough to stand up to the company in this regard. We are interested in helping as many people as we possibly can. We are interested in facing the realities of the international market for nickel, but in a manner to mitigate the effects wherever possible and reducing the jobs lost wherever it is possible to do so.

We want to have a strategy in the resource sector, and that is why we have suggested that there be a committee of the Legislature with all-encompassing terms of reference, to permit not only the inquiry into the activities of certain of the senior officials from Inco, who most certainly should be called before the bar of this House, but also the calling forward of other persons who might contribute in a useful and constructive manner, such as the labour union.

I would like to hear from the labour union, I would like to have them tell the story here, to find out just how duplicitous the company might have been in its relationships with the union in terms of telling them so little, or leading them to believe that the layoffs were not, in fact, imminent.

I’d like to know from international experts whether Inco will be telling the whole truth when the officers come in here to tell us about the unexpected difficulties in the international market. I would like some corroboration from other people, not just from the senior officials of Inco.

Mr. Lewis: You have largely accepted it.

Mr. S. Smith: I’d like to hear from other people in the city of Sudbury and in the area who could make some intelligent suggestions -- which they already have in some ways -- and I would like them to have a chance to expand on them in front of all the parties of this House.

Mr. Cassidy: They suggested that we nail the government to the wall, are you ready to do that?

Mr. S. Smith: That’s why we have suggested widely expanded, broad terms of reference for the committee. We have also suggested that once the committee is finished, in one month, with a report on the specific situation, it should then go on to become a select committee to inquire into the state of the resource sector and to come up with a strategy.

That is constructive, in my opinion. There may be those who disagree with the idea, but I think it is constructive. We put forward these suggestions with every good intention to have the matter dealt with by all parties in this House in as expeditious a way as possible.

Now we come to the actual suggestions made by the members on my left in the New Democratic Party. Some of their suggestions are excellent. The idea that more attention could be paid to safety and some jobs could he saved by having more work done in that area is an excellent suggestion. I am happy to applaud the suggestion and share it with the member.

However, I must say to you that the suggestion that nationalizing Inco would, in fact, solve the problems of these 2,800 layoffs, or in some way improve the international nickel market, is a suggestion that I find preposterous in the extreme.

Mr. Foulds: It is not in the motion, speak to the motion.

Mr. S. Smith: I feel, in fact, that the point of view that has been expressed by the mover of this motion -- I notice he left it out of the motion, but he has certainly expressed it on many other occasions, supported by many other members of his party --

Mr. Foulds: He didn’t express it in this today.

Mr. S. Smith: -- the idea that nationalization would in some way solve this problem is a complete mystery to me. It would cost a lot of money to do that I do not believe this is an intelligent time to put the people of Canada into the nickel business in this manner.

Mr. Cassidy: You are a hypocrite and you are trying to justify not supporting the motion.

Mr. Bounsall: The Leader of the Opposition can’t vote against the motion on that basis.

Mr. S. Smith: I think that is a suggestion that is utterly and completely preposterous.

Mr. Martel: Speak to the motion.

Mr. S. Smith: But now, having decided not to proceed with nationalization at this time, having decided somehow or other to paper over the cracks in that party by deciding to downplay and soft pedal the nationalization aspect now, they have come up with a second solution to the problems of the 2,800 souls who are facing layoff in Sudbury, and that is that we should have an election.

Now how in the name of goodness can we possibly save the jobs of those people by having an election? Are we going to use them as poll clerks throughout the province of Ontario?

Mr. Breaugh: Where is your principle?

Mr. Foulds: The Lieutenant Governor might ask you.

Mr. S. Smith: This has to be, as far as I am concerned, one of the most politically opportunistic motions ever to come in front of this House. I can certainly respect the desire of the member for Sudbury to be re-elected in his seat. I can understand that he is aiming at that.

[4:00]

There may be some poor souls in Sudbury who actually believe any guy who stands up in the House and is willing to have an election for them must be a super guy. But

I’ll tell you this, nobody, even in the midst of the depths of depression and sadness in Sudbury would be so stupid as to believe an election is a solution to their problems at this time.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We agree.

Mr. Germa: The mayor was one, the mayor said it: “Nail them to the wall.”

Mr. S. Smith: Only the people in the NDP could be as irresponsible, as shallow and as opportunistic as to play on the sadness and the difficulty and the despair in that area to bring in this posturing motion, this motion which is fundamentally designed for the folks at home to show what brave fellows exist in the NDP. Everyone knows neither nationalization nor elections will sell one ounce of Canadian nickel overseas.

Mr. Samis: Remember December 1975.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. S. Smith: And so therefore I put to you, Mr. Speaker, that what we need in this House is a proper committee representing all parties to form a strategy in our resource sector, to look at all aspects of the Inco situation, to save whatever jobs are possible, to stand up to Inco and insist Ontario he put first on their list of priorities. We’ve got to ram down the throat of this government a proper attitude towards the resource sector in this province.

Mr. Cassidy: It will die on pieces of paper.

Mr Germa: Can I have some studies?

Mr. Laughren: What a joke.

Mr. S. Smith: But we don’t need an election. The members to my left know we don’t need an election and this whole bill, this entire afternoon’s debate, is designed to serve their narrow political, opportunistic purposes and should be shown up as a shallow exercise they have inflicted upon us. Thank you very much.

Mr. Germa Same old gang; what nonsense. Hon. Mr. Bernier: First candidate. Jim, why aren’t you in this?

Mr. Breaugh: I rise to speak in support of this motion and I think it important that people across the province of Ontario understand the impact of the issue before this particular House on this afternoon; understand that unlike what the minister proposes to put in front of us this is not a matter of geography, this is not a matter of the north versus the south.

This is a matter of economics. It is a matter of the future of the province of Ontario, of how we utilize the resources that arc here, of what impact we might have on our own economy. It is also, as the member for Sudbury so eloquently put it just a week ago, a matter of the human investment, of people who have spent their lives working in a particular community, making that kind of human and very personal investment in an industrial situation only to have it thrown out the window.

Mr. Havrot: Sudbury isn’t the only mining town in the country.

Mr. Breaugh: I think we should look at a couple of other interesting things that have evolved from the discussions around this very issue. For some time now, we’ve been listening to a great deal of chatter about the productivity of the Canadian worker, and in particular, the difficulty of getting the kind of productivity from Ontario workers which would allow them to compete on an international market.

All of a sudden all that is not true; all of a sudden the Premier of the province, as an example, is adamant the productivity of the workers in the Inco plant is not in question at all, that in fact they can compete on a world market and the problem is simply that the world market is having a little difficulty. So all that we listened to for so long about Canadian workers, about Ontario workers in particular not being able to compete, is now shelved.

Let’s look at this very question which has been raised several times; the question of whether the province of Ontario ought to nationalize International Nickel, of whether the province of Ontario ought to have, in public ownership, that entire resource sector or parts thereof. Let’s realize, too, the province of Ontario has a pretty substantial financial investment in that one plant.

Mr. Conway: Now tread very easily, those delegates will be listening.

Mr. Breaugh: In preparing some information on this, I found it very interesting to understand the people of Canada have invested substantial amounts of money. In terms of federal subsidies, there are tax credits involved totalling some $73.85 million; provincial subsidies in sales tax exemptions of $24.95 million; deferred federal and provincial taxes of $378 million; an export development corporation loan of some $77 million. That’s a pretty healthy chunk of the Canadian tax dollar going into one corporate entity in one particular place.

Those of you who are making the argument you cannot afford to nationalize Inco might ask the logical question, “What did we get in return for all that financial investment?”

Certainly we did not get much equity in terms of shares of that particular plant operation; nor will we, I suspect, get much assistance from the corporation in terms of the kinds of social costs that we, the people, will pay for. It is not just the $69 million that we lose in salaries, but the impact on that community, the problems that we will pick up in social assistance programs, the difficulties that we will face on the streets of those communities, and that we, the people will have to pay for thereafter. I wonder what sort of equity that is. I wonder what businessman in his right mind would stand up and justify that kind of investment, with absolutely no control.

If a case to nationalize Inco ever was to be made, it has been made by the company itself.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Are you for nationalization? Let’s flush out the leaders.

Mr. Conway: What’s your position on it, Mike?

Mr. Breaugh: There has never been a situation of a more clearly defined rip-off of the Canadian public in terms of its tax dollar investment, and even in terms of kind consideration by a corporation for its workers or the economy of the province than we are seeing in this particular instance. The thing that disturbs me most of all is that almost all of this is a clear act of will.

I want to read, very quickly Mr. Speaker, from three examples that bring to mind a number of issues. These are exemptions under the mining tax, all dealing with the same corporation, all dealing with a number of items that we have discussed in this House many times.

International Nickel has been given an exemption to the mining tax for an unspecified quantity of materials from the dates of January 1, 1975 to January 31, 1978, to export iron oxide pellets to Hanna Mining Company in the United States; to export nickel oxide and cobalt oxide to Inco in Wales; and oddly enough refined nickel sulfide to the Tokyo Nickel Company in Japan. It is

an act of will, a violation of a piece of legislation that this House passed, supposedly a good decision on the part of the government which would do good things. It would be difficult to identify those good things that were supposed to have happened.

The company supposedly is having some difficulty with its Sudbury operation, and yet it seems to have a good deal of capital still available to invest in other hinds of operations, perhaps in other places in the province of Ontario but certainly not in the Sudbury basin.

Whether you make the case to nationalize Inco, or whether you say that for all of that massive public investment you surely should have received some measure of control --

Mr. S. Smith: Which side are you on?

Mr. Breaugh: -- or whether you are prepared to say, as perhaps the Liberal government might say, that at least you should Influence the role of that particular corporation and its function in the Sudbury basin, one of the oddest things is that a federal government, a federal Liberal government in particular, which has stockpiled everything from eggs to wheat, all of a sudden says that you cannot stockpile something like nickel.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Are you for nationalization? Let’s hear it.

Mr. Breaugh: Let me put to you very briefly the kind of sweet reason, in the midst of all this madness, that comes from the workers themselves who are asking for simple things like no more overtime, a work-to-rule program, improvement of theft pension program, the stopping of contracting out and adjusting the vacation schedule.

Mr. Conway: What is your position?

Mr. Breaugh: In all of this you see a failure on the part of the government of Ontario to implement its own fantasies in terms of a Design for Development for northeastern Ontario; a failure of the province of Ontario to establish in financial terms, a commitment to the development of secondary industry in the north at all. Frankly, in terms of what the member for Sudbury said, and he quoted at some length from this document, “all of what the government has even faintly attempted to do in the north has been, indeed, a profile in failure.” Thank you.

Mr. Pope: May I say at the outset that I am in strong opposition to both the motion and the remarks of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) and of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) who followed him.

Mr. Riddell: Is Bill Ferrier after you?

Mr. Cassidy: You have a nationalized industry in your riding.

Mr. Laughren: I think I am going to be sick.

Mr. Pope: Let me hasten to assure the House that I am not speaking merely as a member of the governing party, I am speaking as a member who represents a northern riding and a member who received over 50 per cent of the vote in my riding in the last election. In my view, Mr. Speaker, the motion of the member for Sudbury is both ill-considered and precipitous.

Mr. Cassidy: Precipitous? After 34 years?

Mr. Pope: It is stated that the government has been unable or unwilling to develop a viable strategy for resource industries and resource industry communities in northern Ontario. This statement is completely without foundation. The government of Ontario has many strategies, which taken together form an impressive program for development in the north.

Mr. Cassidy: And none of them work.

Mr. Martel: What?

Mr. Pope: I am getting to it, just wait. The programs of the government are clear --

Mr. Cassidy: Name one I

Mr. Pope: -- and the overall strategy should be patently obvious to all except those who refuse to recognize it.

Mr. Martel: Does the chamber of commerce support it?

Mr. Pope: In the first place, there is a regional priority program. This program is designed to assist municipalities to provide necessary municipal services. The main beneficiaries have been northern communities and a number of projects are under active consideration. Some examples of projects and funding in the past through DREE-TEIGA agreements cover a number of communities. For instance, Timmins, $10.7 million for sewer and water; Dryden, $2.9 million for sewer and water; Sudbury, $3.1 million for industrial site servicing.

Examples of projects under consideration are North Bay, servicing and industrial park; Elliot Lake, servicing for housing. Capital expenditures under the community priority programs have an estimated cost in 1977-78 of $27,599,000.

Mr. Conway: That’s just normal funding. Mr. Pope: The projected cost for 1978-79 is $35,443,000. This will be mainly aimed at municipal servicing and development of industrial sites. The figures included an allocation of $3,250,000 for servicing of Walden industrial park in Sudbury, which should be completed this year.

Under the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, again jointly funded by the federal, provincial and municipal governments -- the town of Iroquois Falls for instance, just in the last month, received an allocation of $680,000 for basic municipal services in the Porquis Junction area.

Mr. Martel: Imagine, in 1977 getting sewer and water in Sudbury. In 1977 you are getting sewer and water in Timmins. Hurray.

Mr. Pope: The second topic I would like to deal with is the Design for Development program. We have passed Phase 1, which was a thorough analysis of northeastern Ontario combined with some elementary suggestions. Phase 2, which was tabled in this House in April of 1976, deals with policy options. In conjunction with the municipal advisory committee under the chairmanship of Mayor Aurele Gervais of Iroquois Falls, a number of public meetings were held and input was received from municipalities and interest groups in the north.

At the present time policy decisions and future options are being considered at the cabinet level. In brief, Design for Development is a forthright, public and vital part of the government’s strategy for the north.

Thirdly, there is the important matter of conditional and unconditional grants for northeastern Ontario municipalities. The same unconditional per capita grant rates apply in the north as in the south. However, under the provision of the resource equalization grant, the special northern general support grant and the general support grant that applies to all Ontario municipalities, northern municipalities can receive up to 49 per cent of the general purpose municipal levy in addition to the unconditional per capita grants. There are northern municipalities in which the combination of unconditional grants account for up to 60 per cent of their municipal levy.

Education grants are not only based on equalized assessment but also on a number of weighting factors. Those factors most beneficial to the north are goods and service costs for small schools, small boards and compensatory education for a number of underprivileged pupils. These weighting factors increase grants to the north by about 12 per cent over those for the south. These are over and above the increases due to lower assessments in the north.

Mr. Riddell: Do you not think the government is obligated to spend some money in the north, Alan?

Mr. Pope: In addition, there is the strategy evolved by the Ministry of Natural Resources for the use of Crown lands. By this strategy the government has adopted policies for the disposition and use of these lands. Since lands comprise over 80 per cent of the land in northeastern Ontario this is important, when we consider timber rights, potential mineral development and agricultural use. The government’s policy with regard to Crown land are an important component in the overall strategy in the north.

Mr. Foulds: They are an important part of the sellout, Alan.

Mr. Pope: Then there is the matter of capital hospital grants. Municipalities in the north are required to provide one-sixth of the capital of the hospital construction costs,

whereas those in the south provide one-third. This in an obvious recognition of the special problems of the north and a concrete illustration of a definite program.

Mr. Martel: We have no taxpayers.

Mr. Pope: I would now like to move to the question of housing in the north. The government has a definite commitment to help provide affordable housing for citizens in northern Ontario. In my own riding, for example, Timmins, Iroquois Falls and Matheson have received many millions of dollars under a variety of programs ranging from community sponsored housing, urban renewal, Home Ownership Made Easy, RRAP and OHRP.

The Neighbourhood Improvement Program I mentioned earlier is a joint project with the federal government and provides help with basic municipal services. All of these programs are related to a larger plan to provide reasonably priced, serviced accommodation to citizens of the north.

I could read figures on this all afternoon. What is important is that all of these programs, and I’ve mentioned only a few, constitute a clear and definite commitment on the part of the government. To say that they are haphazard or that they are not part of a viable overall strategy is simply irresponsible.

[4:15]

Mr. Conway: The strategy doesn’t exist.

Mr. Pope: Let me now turn my attention to the government’s programs for industry in the