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

October 27, 1980

31st Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L099 - Mon 27 Oct 1980 / Lun 27 oct 1980

WIRETAPPING MEMBERS’ PHONES

TABLING BACKGROUND INFORMATION

REFERENCE IN REPORT

ALLOCATION OF QUESTIONS

DEATH OF JUDY LAMARSH

ORAL QUESTIONS

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

MILK PRICES

EMPLOYER-SPONSORED TRAINING PROGRAM

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

HOSPITAL INTERNS

ANTIFREEZE PRICES

SALE OF STELCO SHARES

SPECIAL OCCASION PERMITS

TABLING BACKGROUND INFORMATION

ASSISTANCE TO PENSIONERS

WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION

TVONTARIO

RURAL ELECTRICAL RATES

SPECIAL OCCASION PERMITS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

SPECIAL OCCASION PERMITS (CONTINUED)

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CITY OF SUDBURY HYDROELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

MEDAL INVESTITURE

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

WIRETAPPING MEMBERS’ PHONES

Mr. Speaker: On Friday, in my absence, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) raised the matter of correspondence, which I have received from the Solicitor General of Canada, concerning wiretapping. I am tabling this letter along with my reply. Members should know that copies have been sent to the House leaders, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), and the chairman of the procedural affairs committee. Through an oversight, these copies were not forwarded until today, for which I apologize, but they have been tabled for the edification of any member who might wish to peruse that correspondence between the Solicitor General of Canada and myself.

TABLING BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Mr. Speaker: Last Thursday, the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) drew to my attention the fact that the Minister of Industry and Tourism had not complied with the provisions of standing order 26(c), which is as follows: “After any policy statement the minister shall table a compendium of background information.

In checking the records of the House, I find that no compendium was tabled, and I now invite the Minister of Industry and Tourism to do so at the earliest possible moment.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will try to do that before question period is over today.

REFERENCE IN REPORT

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) rose on a point of privilege concerning the contents of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Discounting and Allowances in the Food Industry in Ontario. The honourable member objects to the commissioner’s use of the word “allegation” and the failure of the commission to call his son and a store manager as witnesses.

The proceedings of the commission of inquiry are in no way insulting to the member in the sense that his conduct as a member of this House is called into question. It does not appear to affect in any way his position as a member of this Legislature and is therefore not a point of privilege.

ALLOCATION OF QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I would also like to take advantage of the opportunity to remind all members of the points of order raised by the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) and the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) which I heard last week concerning the continuing inability of members to gain the floor for the purposes of asking oral questions.

In checking the records and listening to the tapes I find that we have indeed spent an inordinate amount of time on questions from party leaders, in supplementary questions, and in very lengthy responses. It is not unreasonable that a question be posed without

preamble and, similarly, that an answer be given with equal precision.

Members ought not to assume they will be granted a supplementary question, and I will make every effort to ensure that both sides of the House adhere to this policy. It is not for editorializing or giving something as a statement of fact when, indeed, it is just the opinion of the member posing the question. In essence of fairness, it is the responsibility of the chair to see that all members have ample opportunity to participate to the greatest extent possible in the question period. I would like to remind all honourable members of that fact.

DEATH OF JUDY LAMARSH

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express the sympathies and the sadness of the government and people on the passing of Judy LaMarsh. Judy LaMarsh was a political personality of great strength, presence and forcefulness and, on occasion, of some controversy, as are most politicians.

I will remember her as a very committed Canadian who felt deeply about her country and its people. I am very thankful that our paths crossed on a number of occasions, and I am proud to have been among the many who considered themselves her friend. Miss LaMarsh travelled far and wide but she always considered Niagara Falls, Ontario, her home and spoke fondly of her friends and supporters who today join Canadians across this nation in mourning her loss.

In sickness, as in periods of health, Miss LaMarsh exhibited great courage. In public, as in private life, she will be remembered for her warmth, sincerity and her absolute devotion and loyalty to the causes in which she believed. Judy LaMarsh never hesitated to speak her mind and one always knew where she stood on any given issue. Today, Canada has lost a great Canadian.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) will want to say a few words to the House on this occasion but, on behalf of the official opposition, I certainly want to associate all of us here with the remarks made by the Premier. All of us are saddened by the death of Miss LaMarsh who, I think, would be described as one of the most colourful and dedicated of all Canadians in our generation.

I remember hearing Miss LaMarsh for the first time. She had just entered politics. In fact, just before she decided to run, she was brought to a riding association as a brilliant lawyer. No sooner had I heard her than I came away with the feeling that, if she ever were to run, she would make a tremendous impact on Canadian politics. She certainly did so. She was witty, a fearless commentator on all the issues of the day.

Although I think her death was expected for some time, none the less we all feel bereaved, and I for one greatly admire the courage she showed during the latter days of her life. She has contributed a great deal to this country. All of us are very much in her debt. We are very lucky to have had Judy LaMarsh, a very great Canadian, with us, and we are saddened by her death.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in the tributes being paid to Judy LaMarsh. Judy LaMarsh was not only an ardent member of her party who played an enormous role in the rebuilding of the Liberal Party of Canada after the dark days for that party from 1958 to 1962, but also a distinguished Canadian.

She, as Minister of National Health and Welfare during the mid-1960s, was very much instrumental in great reforms of that time which I think have benefited all of us in Canada, including the Canada pension plan, medicare and the Canada assistance plan, all parts of a reformist drive which is not always present within the Liberal Party of Canada. She also helped us to identify ourselves to ourselves.

I can remember being on the steps of the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa on New Year’s Eve, 1966 to 1967, at the inauguration of centennial year, when Judy LaMarsh was the minister responsible for the centennial celebrations. That was the first kind of time when a lot of people came together and began to get a feeling for what this country was really capable of. At the end of the speeches, the ceremonies and so on, for the first time in my knowledge, there was an outburst of fireworks from behind the Parliament Buildings that expressed that sense of joy and the wonder we all felt in Canada at that time and we all experienced later that year at Expo 1967.

Judy LaMarsh was at the time a rarity in politics, a woman who rose to the highest levels. She has been a distinguished representative of her sex, her party and of our country. We all mourn her death.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I join with the leaders of the three parties in paying tribute to a dear friend who is now coming back home. She even planned this part of her life. Her friends will attest to the fact that those plans were indeed made by Judy.

In Niagara Falls, Judy LaMarsh has always been, and no doubt always will be, “Our Judy.” Other people think of this remarkable woman in terms of her public life as a colourful Secretary of State during Canada’s centennial year; as a first-class Minister of National Health and Welfare; as a capable, brilliant, persuasive and provocative politician; and as an articulate, warm-hearted and fascinating public speaker and radio personality. To us, the people of Niagara Falls, especially those of us who were fortunate enough to know her well, she was all these things and much, much more.

Judy was our friend and neighbour. She was our pride and joy. Although she travelled far and wide, achieving considerable fame throughout Canada and even beyond the borders of this country, she never forgot her roots. She could always be relied upon to be true to her principles, whatever the possible consequences. Her courage was enormous, her endurance and energy awe-inspiring. True to her beliefs, she did it her way.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. According to the document Proposals for Limited-Term Liquid Industrial Waste Solidification Facilities, submitted by his ministry to the Environmental Assessment Board in May 1980, the ministry recommended that Walker Brothers and the ministry become coproponents for a new solidification project in Ontario. According to this document, Walker Brothers has experience in liquid industrial waste management.

Could the minister explain how that could be, inasmuch as Walker Brothers has never been licensed to handle liquid industrial waste? Would the minister like to explain how that document came to refer to them as having experience? Did the people who made up this document know that, contrary to their certificate of approval, Walker Brothers has been handling tons of poisonous liquid industrial waste with virtually no control at all, totally against the certificate which the ministry has given them?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think Walker Brothers has been handling non-hazardous liquid materials, and oily wastes were a part of its area of responsibility. They were using wastes that were not toxic; that is, road oils and those kinds of things. They were one of six or seven companies that made proposals to us on solidification. Their proposal was extremely important to us. In the final analysis we were looking at the quality of their proposal, and that is one of the major reasons why they were given the approval to proceed to an environmental assessment hearing on the concept of solidification.

They had an excellent proposal on the method itself. As the member probably knows, there are many different methods that are all somewhat similar but all somewhat different. They had one of the better proposals, and that is why they were made the coproponent.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister must have heard his own official say on W5 that Walker Brothers has never been licensed to handle so much as one gallon of liquid industrial waste. How is it that the ministry refers to them as people with experience in the matter? And -- how prophetic it was -- how is it the ministry allowed Walker Brothers to take in 34 metric tons of sludge, including toxic materials such as chromium and lead, completely in violation of the certificate of approval, and to receive $800,000 from the Ford Motor Company for handling that waste, completely against their certificate of approval?

Would the minister care to comment on whether he has yet been able to find out the location of the very trucks full of liquid industrial waste that exist at that quarry?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Let me say a little bit about what actually was the process of that waste. There was waste at the Ford Motor Company. Sand was taken to the Ford Motor Company and mixed with that waste; then rather extensive tests were done for what might occur if leachate should evolve from the mixture. We were able to do those leachate tests. The results of those tests indicated that chromium would be present in the proportion of 0.1 part per million. Our guidelines would indicate it is acceptable to have one part per million for drinking water, say, of cattle.

So that waste at Ford had a process through which it became an integral part of a solid material. It was mixed with the sand, as I explained, and the leachate tests done indicated it was well within those limits.

2:20 p.m.

Now, lest you think, Mr. Speaker, that I condone some of the things done by Walker Brothers, I would like to put on to the record exactly what I said to them nearly two weeks ago, long before this issue was raised here in the House. I will table this letter, as a matter of fact -- I will be glad to do so -- but I would like to read into the record the bottom paragraph, which says it rather well:

“In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the need for this ministry to give total assurance to the community for the safe operation of this site and the acceptability of your solidification proposal, I am suspending further activities with reference to the solidification project until these matters have been resolved.”

I would further say, having taken that rather direct and firm stand, we then referred the matter to the Ontario Provincial Police for a full investigation. I do not have the response yet from that provincial officer, but that too will be made public when we have it, as we want to know in no uncertain terms whether there is truth in these allegations. If there is, we will be the first to deal with them.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister share with the House what went on within the Ministry of the Environment when they decided to enter into a proposal with Walker Brothers Quarries Limited on the basis of their experience in liquid industrial waste management when it now appears that their experience was in illegal liquid industrial waste management? Is it to be the policy of the government in future that, even if experience is illegally acquired, it will count as a qualification for dealing with environmental problems in the province?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think the member is, obviously with hindsight, putting emphasis on the word “liquid.” We had contacted every single company that we thought was able to do a project of this size. It is going to take a company with some considerable expertise to handle a project of this size. Those companies said to us: “We think it would be unwise to have six or seven companies in the business. It would be far better to have two -- no more than two -- in the business of solidification and liquid waste treatment.” It seemed strange that they were agreeing to put more than 50 per cent of themselves out of business.

We were pleased to take that advice, because it gave us a great opportunity. As I said in response to the member’s question the other day, we therefore would be able to get rid of landfilling of untreated waste -- the member has heard me say that dozens of times -- and, more particularly, we would be able to have our people on site 24 hours a day. I think that is extremely important as we start to deal more effectively with liquid waste in this province. For 24 hours a day, on all sites that are licensed for liquids, we will have an inspector.

We will have direct control over these accusations, unsubstantiated though they may be. We will know what is going into those sites, and nothing short of that will ever satisfy our ministry.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. S. Smith: He has not answered the question about the buried trucks.

Mr. Speaker: He answers it in any way he deems proper.

Mr. S. Smith: He was not responsive at all to the point that its experience was illegal.

Mr. Speaker: You have had an ample opportunity to put a full first question and a supplementary. We have spent eight minutes on this question and you still do not --

Mr. S. Smith: Six of it was listening to an answer that was not responsive to the question.

Mr. Peterson: Let’s go home and let the Speaker ask the questions.

Mr. Speaker: I do not need any smart comments from the member for London Centre. I have been charged with the responsibility of sharing the question period equitably.

Mr. S. Smith: I have another question for the Minister of the Environment. Fresh from this success and with waybills in hand showing that the ministry knew liquid waste was going into the Walker’s quarry all the time, does the minister care to make some comment on the subject of South Cayuga as a site in which the dream of John White now is to turn into a nightmare for the area?

Does the minister care to explain how he can expect the people of Ontario to believe him when he asks them to take liquid industrial waste when, instead of basing his choice of sites on a geological or ecological survey of Ontario, he goes to Harwich because there is already a dump, to Ajax because they have an old sewage treatment plant and now to South Cayuga because John White had a dream?

Will the minister please tell this House how he expects the people of Ontario to believe him when he asks them to accept liquid industrial waste when his criteria are based on political convenience rather than a geological survey of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It might be interesting for the member to turn around and look at the man in the far left-hand corner from where I sit. Indeed, I will be glad to supply for him a copy of Hansard where his member suggested that Cayuga might be an ideal spot for liquid waste. It is readily available. I am personally not going to respond to that question about Cayuga until such time as the MacLaren report has come to my hands and I have a much more complete knowledge of why they think it is or is not a good site.

There are many sites being considered at this time, and that is the way it should be. We have a large number of potential areas where we think there is a possibility that a site should be supplied. It would be a great help if the opposition leader’s colleagues were not always saying, “Not here.” They have always got a great answer to where it should be, but it is very seldom specific except in the instance I gave, and that was one that it should be in Cayuga.

As far as the first part of the question is concerned -- about whether we knew -- obviously we did not know, and we will not condone that kind of misinformation. As I have said --

Mr. S. Smith: I have the waybill with the minister’s approval.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I do not think the member does, but I will not argue that point. I think there is a piece of paper -- I am not sure it is a waybill -- but let me deal with that when the member supplies the evidence to me. Let me see that evidence, and I will be glad to view it. It does take some time from the moment it is filed at the site to when we have it; so I think the member should bear that in mind. But my staff did not know that liquid waste per se was going into that site. I think it is extremely important that this be clarified for the record.

Mr. S. Smith: I will supply the waybill for the minister on that matter.

On Cayuga: Since the minister says he wants to see the MacLaren report, I assume he is referring to the MacLaren report which surveyed all of Ontario to find the best sites. It contained a huge map of southern Ontario in which many sites were suggested, and South Cayuga was not one of them. Or maybe he is referring to the Dillon report, which is the one that Mr. Frewin referred to in the newspaper.

When the minister is represented by Mr. Frewin in the newspaper, is he referring to the Dillon report which said that South Cayuga might be considered for certain wastes? If so, is he aware that the Dillon report was on PCBs and not on liquid industrial waste? That is a totally different matter. As the Dillon report said on the subject of PCBs, “South Cayuga rated low in the land-use and public policies criteria.”

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Again, I think I should clarify the record. I think it is fairly clear that there are two reports expected from MacLaren. One did look at all of this province, and they did that with a knowledge of the soil conditions and a lot of various things they thought should be considered for a site. A second report is forthcoming; so there is no inconsistency in my answer at all.

The first report was one of a general nature and was intended to be just that -- a general view of the province and where sites might be located. The next report was to be much more specific in nature, and that is the one that is forthcoming in the near future.

I want to be clear that the ministry asked that the study consider not just Cayuga but all other areas where we have tracts of land that might be suitable for such a disposal site. It seemed reasonable to us that we should expect our own land might be a place, if the conditions of soil were correct, that a facility might be located.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain to the House how it is that with all of these potential areas across the province to choose from, the ministry is proceeding to test, and has consultants studying, disposal of liquid wastes on the lands at Cayuga? That violates a ministry guideline that says liquid waste dumps should not be located on the kind of prime agricultural land that is found in the Cayuga land assembly area.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: If the honourable member reads those recommendations carefully, I think he will find that if he took each and every one of them and applied all of them to any particular potential site, they would rule out every site.

Mr. Swart: The book showed 50 sites -- 25 optimum sites.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Does the member want to just swallow it and have it magically disappear? Is that the way he would deal with it?

What we have to do is take that set of parameters and, based on what they have suggested, find which is the best site. We will have to put a priority on those parameters, and that is what we are trying to do. The forthcoming report is trying to do that. It would be nice if we could find a spot in the middle of nowhere to put these sites. Obviously we cannot, and everyone knows that. So we have a set of parameters and we will try to find the best site, all things being considered, and those parameters will be used as guidelines.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Mr. Frewin is quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying: “Consultants’ studies have recommended that site as a potentially good landfill site for liquid waste.” Since the earlier MacLaren study did not comment on this site and apparently the new study to which the minister has referred has not as yet been released, what studies have recommended that site? Or was Mr. Frewin not giving correct information with respect to liquid industrial waste?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: PCBs are a component of liquid industrial waste, and therefore the Dillon report deals with the specific components of it, not the total. The second MacLaren report has not reached my office as yet. I hope it comes very soon, because we desperately need these facilities here in Ontario.

No one can deny that in the last year and a half there has been a great deal of activity to find suitable sites to treat our liquid waste. It is perhaps the most pressing problem this province faces today and it is extremely important that we get on with the job.

MILK PRICES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the ministry about the price of milk, and I would like to start by addressing it to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister knows that in August, when farmers got a 2.8-cent-a-litre increase in the price of their milk, the dairies and retailers took an increase of 4.2 cents a litre, to bring the overall increase to the consumer to seven cents a litre. At that time, the minister promised to discuss these unjustified price increases with the industry. Has the minister had those discussions with the industry and has he convinced the dairies to roil back their prices?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is well aware that this ministry has no authority to ask the dairies to roll back their prices.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: I redirect this to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Since the Minister of Agriculture and Food says he has no powers to roll back prices, he should not have gone to meet with them in the first place.

Five years ago, the government received an inquiry report which showed that retailers were overcharging Ontario’s consumers between $8 million and $17 million a year for milk. Since the farmers’ milk prices are controlled and they have to justify every increase they receive in their fluid milk prices in the province, and since the minister has had the evidence of overcharging by the retailers and dairies for five years, why has he not used his powers over consumer prices to control excessive milk prices and milk price increases by dairies and supermarkets?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am blissfully unaware of the report the honourable member is talking about. Secondly, I do not think the present price of milk is not justifiable.

When the leader of the third party talks about the increase, he gives the impression that the farmers received the lower end of the total cost. The truth of the matter is that the farmer got 55 per cent, based upon the raw milk cost.

I think there is something else that the leader of the third party should be aware of: This has been a rather dismal, and continues to be a dismal sector for the dairies. I don’t think one has to read any more than the financial pages to see the very precarious position that dairies, not just in Ontario but indeed across the country, are in. I have looked at --

Mr. Peterson: If the Tories started drinking milk, it would help them out. It would really help them out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the minister finished with his answer?

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, I am not, Mr. Speaker; I have one sentence.

The present price of milk, based upon a number of factors including energy and warehousing -- particularly the labour agreements in warehousing -- does not seem unjustified.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the minister is not aware of that report, but let us come back to the reality at the moment: the farmers got 2.79 cents, the dairies raised it to five and the supermarkets raised it to seven, so that 60 per cent of the increase went to the dairies and the supermarkets. Is the minister aware of the fact that the Ontario Milk Marketing Board at its recent meetings in Geneva Park reiterated once again its claim that the dairies and the supermarkets should be made to be publicly accountable for their increases, just as the farmers have to be publicly accountable?

How does the minister know whether they are justified, because he does not know any of the facts?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into this matter since the increases were announced, but let me just draw to the attention of the honourable member who asked the question that the increase to farmers, expressed in terms of quarts, amounts to 9.6 cents for the three-quart size. Supermarkets increased the price of a three-quart pouch pack of homogenized and two per cent milk by 17 cents, which means the farmers get 56 per cent of the latest price increase and the processors and retailers get 44 per cent.

EMPLOYER-SPONSORED TRAINING PROGRAM

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in June 1979, the Minister of Colleges and Universities assured the Legislature that the employer-sponsored training program would increase the number of women receiving skills training. Can the minister explain why this year there are four women and 1,500 men in the employer-sponsored training program, as opposed to five women and 605 men a year ago?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker, I can give no specific rationale for that. The employer-sponsored training program is open equally to women and to men. The agreements that have been signed have been related to specific industries in which, at the present time, there is not a great preponderance of women looking for upgrading of their skills. We are attempting through community industrial training councils to broaden the base of employer-sponsored training right across the province, and, as I said, there is a full openness in that program so that it is equally applicable to both men and women.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the statistics contradict what the minister keeps on telling us about the programs being equally open to women as well as to men, will the minister say what steps she and the government have taken to ensure that women are adequately represented in the employer-sponsored training programs and apprenticeship programs in this province, specifically since a week and a half ago she signed an agreement for 186 new training places with the auto parts industry? Can the minister say how many women will be guaranteed places in that particular program, and if there are no guarantees, why not?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is my understanding that the agreement we signed last week is for 356 new training places in the automotive parts manufacturing area, and there is no specific guarantee that there will be a number of places held for women; there is no quota established at this point. If, indeed, there are women who are interested in being involved in that kind of training program, the program is as open to them as it is to any male applicant.

2:40 p.m.

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has probably heard the comments made by the Minister of the Environment as they relate to an OPP investigation into the solidification process by Walker Brothers Quarries Limited as a proposal to the ministry. Is there anyone else who participated in initiating this investigation as well as the Minister of the Environment?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not aware of anyone else, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary: Is the minister proposing a full investigation into the staff of the Ministry of the Environment as well as into what are considered to be breaches of the licence by Walker Brothers? Can we get an answer pretty soon because this thing has dragged on for a long time and we would like some answers?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: What we are interested in is an investigation in relation to any issues of criminality. As far as I know, that will be the scope of the investigation.

Mr. Isaacs: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of the Environment: Can the minister explain how a TV crew, in a few days of research, was able to turn up this evidence of problems going into that dump site when his own staff, who had been aware of the dump site for a long time, and who as recently as June 23, 1980, issued a new certificate of approval for that site, were apparently in ignorance of all the problems? Why does the minister’s staff not investigate before they issue new certificates of approval?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, the announcement of last week addresses the answer very well. Precisely what we needed was the enforcement team we announced last week. It will give us this kind of expertise, this kind of searching out of those who are doing something illegally.

I find it rather interesting that in this morning’s press, the haulers themselves indicated they very much think the idea is an excellent one and they are going to assist it. It is that kind of assistance the Ministry of the Environment needs and, in my opinion, deserves. We cannot be every place in this province all the time. We never will be; that is an impossibility. But I am not going to take a thing away from W5 for having brought something forward. I welcome that; I would welcome it if anyone else who knows of illegal dumping would bring it to us.

Now that we have this team on stream that will let us take these investigations to the fullest, and now that we are going to bring in fines and strong prosecutions against those companies using their equipment for burial, we will come at last, with the support of the people of this province, to a full understanding and we will destroy any possibility of illegal dumping.

Mr. Isaacs: I would like to ask the minister whether he will make the producers of these hazardous wastes responsible for their safe disposal so that companies such as the Ford Motor Company cannot pay off a haulage company to do their dirty work for them. Will he make the producers responsible for ensuring the waste is properly disposed of?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Of course we will, Mr. Speaker. That is what it is all about.

Mr. Warner: When?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We have said over and over again that the disposal of untreated wastes or landfill must stop. It will stop as soon as those facilities are in place. It will he fully paid for, 100 per cent, by the producers of those wastes. Indeed, the waybill system will be a system whereby the producers must be in full knowledge of where that material is going, how it is being destroyed, how much it is costing them, and they must take full responsibility. Those are the facts. The members may not like to hear them but they are the facts.

It is also a fact that Bill 24, passed by this Legislature in the last session, made the person who owned or was in control and possession fully responsible if a spill should occur. That is the kind of positive action that this government, my administration, has taken on liquid industrial waste. As I said the other day, there is no other jurisdiction that comes close to us.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister prepared to commit himself now to a search by his ministry for those allegedly buried tank trucks in the Walker Brothers quarry in order that he can do a chemical analysis? According to Mr. Walker, only a visual inspection was done of those toxic materials.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Sneaker, I do not have to promise we will do it; we are in the process of doing it right now.

HOSPITAL INTERNS

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) my question will be to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. It concerns the reports in today’s press about a strike by the Professional Association of Interns and Residents of Ontario on Thursday of this week. Can the Minister of Colleges and Universities indicate to this House whether or not it is her understanding that there was an agreement arrived at between the Ontario Council of Administrators of Teaching Hospitals and the interns and residents association in the summer?

If it is not her understanding, can she give this House some indication of what the government proposes to do to avert what would be a very serious disruption of our hospital services on Thursday of this week?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that at a meeting between representatives of OCATH and PAIRO in the summer there was not agreement except about the level of remuneration that would be provided to interns and residents for a retroactive period and the current period. I was not aware there had been even a suggestion of an agreement until I read that in the newspapers, as a matter of fact.

There have been discussions among the three ministries with involvement in this area. As I am sure the honourable member knows the entire matter of that report has been referred to the clinical education committee of the Ontario Council of Health. I am aware that committee has met with PAIRO within a fairly recent period of time and discussions are going on about the entire matter.

Mr. Conway: In view of the fact that 23 teaching hospitals in this province would presumably be affected by this withdrawal of services -- services that are vital to the provision of institutional health care in this province -- and in view of the fact that withdrawal is threatened in about 72 hours from this moment, can the minister indicate what the government’s position is with respect to this proposed withdrawal of services and what concrete steps her government is taking to ensure that the people of this province, who require those services, will not be without them in two or three days’ time?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, since that is a matter which falls under the direct jurisdiction of the Minister of Health, it would be much more appropriate to discuss that matter with that minister. I have no immediate knowledge of the position which that minister has taken as of today.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Health, could I redirect that to the Premier, who must surely speak for the entire ministry. Can the Premier indicate what involvement he has had and what specific proposals he has taken to these very critical negotiations which threaten this province with a strike on Thursday of this week?

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Premier have any additional information to add to the supplementary?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, not in the context of being an expert on the subject, but I do understand the Minister of Health is with the Ontario Hospital Association at this moment and the ministry, of course, is concerned. There have been some discussions. I think the feeling of the ministry is that the actual care of any of the patients in those institutions would not be prejudiced in the short term.

The ministry has made it quite clear that it is prepared to meet with both sides; there may even be three sides to these negotiations, but at the moment the ministry is quite sure that the care of the patients will not be affected, certainly in the short term.

Mr. Mackenzie: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the Minister of Education tell us how -- following the ratification of the interns as reported in the Medical Post on August 12 -- the head of the OCATH team could state, as reported, “‘We have not ratified the agreement but I do not foresee any problems,’ said Boyd McAulay, OCATH president.” If that is not an agreement or close to it, I do not know what is. Was there a third party intervention that has brought about the obvious collapse of what seemed to be a firm agreement?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge there never was a firm agreement and I am not at all aware of the procedure that Mr. McAulay might have been alluding to in that article.

2:50 p.m.

ANTIFREEZE PRICES

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations know and does he care that the price of Prestone has increased 75 per cent in the last two years; that the major increase took place in 1979 because of underproduction of ethylene glycol in Canada at that time, and that although the production is now adequate, the ripoff continues?

Is the minister aware that the ethylene glycol market in Canada is controlled by only two multinationals, Union Carbide and Dow Chemicals, and that their profits have been enormous in the last two years and are going up dramatically? For instance, Union Carbide’s profits went up from $20 million in 1978 to $58 million in 1979 and by a further 150 per cent in the first six months of 1980. Has the minister looked into this and can he justify this set of circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I will consult with my colleague, the federal minister, on this matter. Excuse me, what is your problem today?

Mr. M. N. Davison: You don’t know, but do you care?

Hon. Mr. Drea: My friend, I care about a great number of things.

Mr. Swart: May I ask a supplementary?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just ignore the interjections. The minister has taken your initial question as notice. He will check with his federal counterpart and, at that time, the member will have an opportunity to explore it further.

Mr. Swart: I have further evidence.

Mr. Speaker: Why didn’t you put it in your initial question?

Mr. Swart: You have said on occasion not to make questions too long and I wanted to shorten it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That is a risk the member takes. He can’t automatically assume he is going to get a supplementary. The minister has taken your question as notice. When he reports back to the House, you will be given the opportunity for a supplementary.

SALE OF STELCO SHARES

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) asked a question concerning stock activity regarding the Steel Company of Canada. In answer to his question, I am informed by the Ontario Securities Commission that as of today there is no information that insider positions are being accumulated -- by insider, I mean 10 per cent -- or that any takeover bid is in progress.

In response to another part of the question, I would draw to the member’s attention that Stelco stock has always been relatively widely held in the United States. One of the reasons for that is that of all the steel company investments available to the public in North America, Stelco is the best.

SPECIAL OCCASION PERMITS

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy) asked a question regarding special occasion permits. May I say initially that a great deal of misinformation has been circulated regarding this subject. I welcome the question because it is an opportunity once again to state clearly what has taken place.

The concerns of the member are inappropriate because the maximum price that may be charged for alcoholic beverages applies only to social-sale, special-occasion-permit functions. The social-sale events are held only by groups or organizations that have no charitable and/or community objectives. The regulations under the Liquor Licence Act have always stated it was illegal to make a profit from this type of permit. Therefore, no change has been made to the policy, but just to the manner in which it is controlled, to ensure that the policy is enforced.

Charitable service, ethnic and/or community organizations are entitled to apply for fund-raising permits which are not subject to any price controls. Therefore, these types of groups or organizations may raise as much money as they wish, provided they have the proper type of permit. I would caution the members, however, that many individuals object to the new system because it was designed to impede, and it does impede their ability to make an illegal profit.

I also assure the members that no legitimate organization should be affected by the new regulations.

Mr. Di Santo: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that there are hundreds of ethnic clubs that have no charitable or, as he defines them, community objectives? They are local clubs for small groups of people with no possibility of fund raising but they need the money they get at the bar for their survival.

Is the minister aware that these regulations have raised such an uproar that 120 clubs met in Guelph on October 23, and that the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario had a special meeting on the minister’s regulations and was told an outright lie, that this Legislature changed the regulations? Does the minister not think, because there is such a widespread uproar in the province, it is only wise to go back to the regulations as they were before July? How many Conservatives does he need to dissatisfy in order to provide the fall of the government?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, no ethnic club will suffer from this.

Mr. Di Santo: Yes, they will.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I would ask the member to name me one. Every ethnic or social organization that obviously raises funds to do something for the community will have no difficulty whatsoever getting a permit. The only time they might have some difficulty is when they want to use the money for their own hall and will not admit the public. If they admit the public or if they put the money into parts of the hall used for cultural or community purposes, then there is no problem whatsoever.

Mr. Di Santo: The minister will have a big fight.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I will not have a big fight, I say to the honourable member.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The Legion feels quite good about the act.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Industry and Tourism would like to comply with a request made earlier.

TABLING BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, while I don’t necessarily agree with your ruling that a compendium is required to my statement last week, I am more than delighted to table now with the Clerk, the compendium showing 307 new plants or expansions, $7.4 billion worth of new investment and 25,000 new jobs in Ontario in the last 20 months. I am very pleased and proud to table that on behalf of this government.

ASSISTANCE TO PENSIONERS

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, as the minister responsible for matters of landlord and tenant and as the minister responsible in the field of false advertising, a promotional brochure that is in my hands, and ask for his comment.

“If you are an Ontario resident 65 years of age or over, you are eligible, regardless of income, for the property tax grant if you pay property tax on your residence or rent for your accommodation.”

Has the minister altered the definition of “tenant” under the legislation? If he has not, would he have his consumer protection branch direct the ministry responsible to ensure that it will see that all tenants 65 years of age or over in this province are, as his material says, eligible for the property tax grant?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has made a mistake, and a quite common one. I am not the minister in charge of the Landlord and Tenant Act; it is my colleague, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). I will refer the matter that has been raised by the member to the Attorney General. The reason for the mistake is that when the new Residential Tenancies Act -- which is now in limbo before the Supreme Court of Canada -- was passed in this Legislature, there was a transfer of jurisdiction. With that bill in hiatus, the Attorney General is still responsible for landlord and tenant matters; I have only rent review.

Mrs. Campbell: Does the minister, having this expertise in the past, know whether there has been a change of definition of “tenant” under the landlord and tenant legislation? Also, I understand in the first instance it is up to this minister to look at the matter of false advertising.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I said I would look at the matter. I just want to point out to the honourable member that I am not the minister responsible for landlord and tenant procedures.

Mrs. Campbell: We have difficulty finding the other minister.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I will be very pleased to look into the matter, but I will also have to consult with the minister under whose primary jurisdiction the definition of “tenant” is. I will look into the matter about the false advertising. I presumed that was known when I answered it.

WHITE MOTOR CORPORATION

Mr. Makarchulc: Mr. Speaker, in view of the uncertainty that exists regarding White Motor Corporation in Brantford, can the Minister of Industry and Tourism indicate to the House what action he is contemplating at this time to preserve those jobs? Is he prepared to bring in legislation similar to legislation that exists in European jurisdictions, which more than likely would prevent the closure of this particular facility and the loss of 1,700 jobs?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question. May I say, to answer the second part first, I do not know what specific legislation the member is referring to in Europe that would save jobs, which have been affected by a lot of things, including market, but if he wants to send over a copy of the legislation, I will look at it and no doubt reject the request.

With regard to the White farm equipment firm, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the statement I made here last Thursday or Friday in response to a question from, I think, the same member. I indicated at that time that I was fairly optimistic. I believe Hansard and others recorded that as “very optimistic.” In fact, I remain fairly optimistic. The receiver called us on Friday to point out to us that as of last Friday some of the recalls from layoffs that were anticipated: earlier, that is, at the time at which the mayor of Brantford and others came in to see me, had not yet occurred. As of today’s date, the matter is still being reviewed by the receiver.

Mr. Makarchuk: In view of the fact that the market conditions have improved dramatically with the American sales to China, and also in view of the fact that there is a possibility of an imminent takeover at White, is the minister prepared at this time to seek or negotiate some guarantees with the new people, to ensure the continuation of that operation and the jobs?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Obviously, if there is a takeover involving a FIRA application, my ministry will have input and will be making input which will try to reflect the goals the member stated.

TVONTARIO

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Culture and Recreation regarding the delay in providing TVOntario service to the Nipissing area: In the light of the fact that the government has committed itself for several years to full Ontario coverage of TVOntario services, and considering the fact that the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) himself has confirmed that the needed capital funding is at present available, when can the people of Nipissing, as well as those of Parry Sound and Muskoka, expect the operating funds to be provided for the service for which the taxpayers in the north are already paying?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as I reported to this House a few weeks ago, TVOntario and my ministry and our government are certainly aware there are still some areas of Ontario that are not being covered by TVOntario. However, right now, 87 per cent of the population is receiving TVOntario service. The area just alluded to, the Nipissing-Parry Sound district, is one to which we wish to extend our service and plans are under way to do that.

We have not made any final plans. If the capital were available -- and the member has indicated it likely is -- I would remind all members here that the capital really represents the smaller part of the cost of extending TVOntario to a new area. The operating funds that follow thereafter are 15 or 20 times higher than the initial capital investment. In spite of that concern, we are still very actively looking at the possibility of extending the service.

As we look at the expansion of TVOntario and as we look at the traditional methods of expanding our service, we are at the present time perhaps the world leader in experimenting with satellite broadcasting. As the member knows, 40 remote areas in northern Ontario for the last 18 months have been getting TVOntario signals bounced off Anik B. We want first of all to be sure we know fully what those implications are for the conventional systems. In spite of waiting for that, I am still very optimistic, as is my colleague, the Minister of Revenue, that TVOntario will be expanding into the member’s area.

Mr. Bolan: In other words, the minister does not know when this service is going to be provided. Is that right?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: No. That is not right. If the member would like to know at which hour and which minute, the answer is I would not know -- but certainly it is imminent.

Mr. Kerrio: How about the month?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Right after Kingston gets it.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister has mentioned his satellite program, and I understand it has been extended for an additional 19 months, could he indicate how many of those sites are in the Nipissing-Muskoka- Parry Sound area? If there are not very many, is he willing to extend the program into that area?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: There is a program that receives signals bounced from the satellite Anik B, which is very much in the experimental stage. We only have 40 so-called dishes, which are the receiving part of it, in people’s backyards. We do not intend under Anik B to extend that much beyond the 40. We are already making plans through TVOntario -- again the world leader in this field, I might say, that when satellite --

Mr. Bradley: Don’t hurt your hand patting yourself on the back.

Hon. Mr. Baetz: The members over there don’t like to hear the good news -- great news: TVOntario is the world leader in satellite broadcasting. When Anik C goes up, we will be there with it and we will probably be able to reach all the people of Ontario at that time.

RURAL ELECTRICAL RATES

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Last week, in responding to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) with regard to the apparent failure of Ontario Hydro to respond to the government’s new policy of removing differentials between rural and municipal residential rates, he referred to a document that is now circulating among the Ontario Municipal Electric Association and the major power users. I think I have a copy of that document in my hand.

I wonder whether the Premier is aware that the framers of the new policy -- which they say is going to be based on government objectives and policies -- state that the switch from the current to the proposed new rate structure will result in $33 million less being charged to the municipal bulk rates. That will be met by an increase of $8.8 million to the direct major power users and an increase to the rural users of $24.4 million. Is the Premier aware that is the framework of the new policy that is now being fleshed out and will arrive at his office some time soon? How can that conceivably meet the objective of removing the differential for rural consumers?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with that particular report.

Mr. MacDonald: This is the report.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, we have had no report from Ontario Hydro. Now whether there has been a circulation from the Ontario Municipal Electric Association, which has had consultations with Hydro based upon the statement we made, I do not know. All I can say to the honourable member is what I said last week, which is that we are anticipating the report from Ontario Hydro to recommend to us the various options that might be available in terms of the reduction of the differential in rates between the rural and urban customers. I have not had that report. My advice is that report is not yet ready.

Mr. MacDonald: The report is a report of Ontario Hydro. It is dated August 1980. It states in the latter portion that it is now being circulated to the OMEA and the major power users. This undoubtedly is the report that ultimately, in its refined stage, will be sent to the Premier. I repeat that what that report envisages is a cut of $33 million to the municipalities, an increase of $8 million to the major power users and an increase of $24 million to the rural direct retailers. Is the Premier not aware of that? Why is it generally available to the OMEA and he does not know they are moving towards a violation of what he states is government policy rather than the fulfilment of it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, there have been discussions with the OMEA; I was a part of them. The OMEA, as I mentioned to members here in the House, are less than enthusiastic -- that is a moderate way of describing it -- with respect to the policy we enunciated last April. There may have been discussions with the OMEA based on some hypothesis; whether that is a part of it, I do not know. I just point out to the member for York South, I was talking to the chairman of Ontario Hydro just a few days ago, as has the Minister of Energy. We do not have the report from Ontario Hydro.

Mr. MacDonald: It has gone out to the OMEA and the major power users.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, it has not gone out to everybody in terms of the recommendations they will be making to us.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: This is, I think, a good opportunity to ask the Premier a question, since he says there are some reports that he does not have in this connection. I suppose I am properly assuming that he agrees with the published report in the Ottawa Journal of some months ago which indicated that the former Minister of Energy, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) indicated that tens of thousands of rural hydro users in this province were “being ripped off by the provincial utility.” Surely he does agree with that and that is why he is moving in this direction to correct this “ripoff” that has taken place over these many 37 years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member should live so long.

Mr. Kerrio: He will.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I hope so. I wish him well. I expect he will live to a ripe old age, but not necessarily as a member of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Was I departing -- you have handled the question period very well, Mr. Speaker; I will not --

Mr. Speaker: It has nothing to do with the age of the member who asked it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He mentioned something about age; I forget what it was.

Mr. Conway: When the member for Prince Edward-Lennox was the Minister of Energy, he said tens of thousands of rural hydro users had been ripped off.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will just repeat what I said; I know it takes a minute or two to sink in.

The policy enunciated last April, which Ontario Hydro will be recommending to us as to how it might be accomplished, is to reduce the differential between the urban and rural rates. As I pointed out to the members, part of the complexity of this, which may or may not show in the report or whatever document the member for York South has, is that there are some situations even now where the local municipal rate is higher than the rural rate because of the involvement of the local municipal utility.

It is not just a case of saying all the municipal rates are at X, and so all we have to do is reduce the rural rate by a percentage, because we could then widen the differential in another sense between the urban and rural rates. It really is rather complicated. This is one of the reasons the OMEA, including, I am sure, people from the member’s own riding, are less than enthusiastic. None the less, the commitment remains.

Mr. Conway: However, the Premier does agree with the member for Prince Edward-Lennox?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I try to be as agreeable as I can with everybody, including the member for Renfrew North in those circumstances when he can divorce himself from his partisan instincts.

SPECIAL OCCASION PERMITS

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Recreation.

In view of the fact that during his estimates he told the members of the committee that his ministry is designed to promote multiculturalism, ethnic organizations, heritage groups and recreational groups; and in view of the fact that his government likes to indicate it is in favour of deregulation and allowing individuals to do things for themselves, does the minister not feel that the new regulations announced by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations through the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario are going to have a confining effect on the ethnic and other organizations across Ontario in terms of their ability to continue the ongoing operation and routine maintenance of their buildings if these regulations are left the way they are?

Mr. Speaker: The member must realize and will agree that the same question was already asked of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea). it was a supplementary put by the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo).

Mr. Bradley: I recognize that, Mr. Speaker. The reason I directed it to the Minister of Culture and Recreation is that it is his responsibility. I am asking for his comment as the Minister of Culture and Recreation and not from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Minister of Culture and Recreation have a response to what he has heard up to this point?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I would simply like to say, Mr. Speaker, that we over on this side of the House and I as the minister responsible for multiculturalism have a far greater interest in the ethnic groups than anybody else over there. That is all.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 28, the member for Downsview has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer given by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to his question concerning liquor regulations. This matter will be debated at 10:30 tomorrow night.

SPECIAL OCCASION PERMITS (CONTINUED)

Mr. M. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct the record. During the answer by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to a question from the member for Sarnia (Mr. Blundy), and again on the supplementary being raised by the member for Downsview, the minister indicated that ethnic halls in this province would have no difficulty in getting fund-raising permits if they had something to do with community betterment. He put somewhere in that response that that meant as long as they opened up their halls for --

Mr. Speaker: What is the member’s point?

Mr. M. Davidson: My point, Mr. Speaker, is that I am correcting the record, if I may. In the Hansard report of the standing procedural affairs committee meeting of Wednesday, October 1, the minister said in response to a question: “People look at community betterment and they say, ‘But we have been running an ethnic hall.’ We say, ‘That is community betterment because it is something that is in the community.’” Nowhere does it say that it has to be for any purpose.

A weak ago last Friday, I approached the minister regarding a special occasion permit for the Holland-Canada Club in my area. Granted, he phoned someone down at the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. He then told me all that was required was a letter from this group indicating how they disbursed their funds. I went back to that group, I got the letter and I personally met with Doug Rolling, the director of special occasion permits, on Monday morning.

Mr. Speaker: None of that is on the record; so you are not correcting any record that I am aware of.

Mr. M. Davidson: I am correcting what the minister said in response to a question. He said they could get one. I am suggesting they cannot.

Mr. Speaker: That is a difference of opinion; it is clear and simple.

Mr. M. Davidson: It is not a difference of opinion; it is a matter of fact. He is contradicting himself.

Mr. Speaker: It is a difference of opinion.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, while I was answering a question a week ago Friday, the member ducked behind my seat here and asked me to expedite the issuing of a permit. I went out to the phone and told them what had to be done. The permit will be issued.

Mr. M. Davidson: They have not got it, and the event was Saturday night.

3:20 p.m.

LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE

Mr. Isaacs: I have a point of privilege on a different matter, Mr. Speaker.

On October 9, I asked the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) to provide copies of all agreements and correspondence between himself or his staff and Walker Brothers, or the proponents for that solidification plant. I received a reply to that question on October 24. Today the minister tabled a letter dated October 16 which was not included in the response I received from the minister to that written question, nor was there any indication in the response to my written question that the minister was withholding information in his reply.

I wonder whether you would investigate, Mr. Speaker, because I believe my privileges have been breached.

Mr. Speaker: It would have been more appropriate if the honourable member had raised that while the minister was here. I will await the other side of the question.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Swart, in the absence of Mr. Philip, from the standing committee on administration of justice, presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr33,

An Act respecting the Estate of Mary Agnes Shuter;

Bill Pr34,

An Act to revive Theatre Passe Muraille;

Bill Pr35,

An Act to revive Gould’s Drug Store Limited;

Your committee recommends that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr34,

An Act to revive Theatre Passe Muraille.

Report adopted.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that the subcommittee of the standing committee on administration of justice be authorized to sit next Tuesday following routine proceedings to consider its report on its review of Ontario Housing Corporation.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CITY OF SUDBURY HYDROELECTRIC SERVICE ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved first reading of Bill 175,

An Act to provide for Municipal Hydroelectric Service in the City of Sudbury.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as members of the House will recall, this bill establishes a new municipal hydroelectric commission for the city of Sudbury. It is a first step towards the total restructuring of the municipal electric commissions in the regional municipality of Sudbury. In taking this interim step, the government is responding to the wishes of the people of Sudbury and following the recommendations of the local study team report.

No later than January 1, 1980, all customers in the city of Sudbury will be supplied with power by the new commission. This bill does not affect existing agreements for supply of power by private companies.

This bill has been reviewed with members of the Sudbury council, members of the Sudbury Hydro Commission and indeed those members of the Legislature representing the Sudbury area.

On behalf of the government, I wish to commend the Sudbury local study team, Ontario Hydro and my colleagues of the Legislature for their efforts to establish a more rational and responsive electric power service for the people of the city of Sudbury.

MEDAL INVESTITURE

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I would like to remind all honourable members that there will be an investiture of the Ontario Medal for Firefighters Bravery and the Ontario Medal for Police Bravery, which will take place on the lower steps of the main lobby on the first floor. The stairway will be closed, and the investiture is to take place at six o’clock; I mention that so there will be no surprises when we rise at six.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the answers to questions 307 and 308 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: When the committee was last discussing these estimates I believe the member for Algoma had the floor.

Mr. Wildman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to indicate to the committee my appreciation of the minister’s giving me a ride downtown today from the airport. I hope he left that rifle he had in the trunk at home before he came to the estimates.

When we were last considering these estimates, I was raising the matter of clarification of the ministry’s role and indicating the difficulty we sometimes have in getting a definitive statement of what that role is from this minister or his colleagues.

We are told the Ministry of Northern Affairs is not a line ministry but, rather, its mandate is to co-ordinate the provincial government’s response to the needs of the north. But whenever one tries to obtain clarification of exactly what that means -- that is, the responsibility of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, or the ministry’s relationship to the so-called line ministries -- one encounters difficulties.

I would expect that a ministry charged with ensuring the provincial government responds to the needs of the north should be able to influence line ministries’ policies regarding the north. But, no, this is not the case.

For instance, when I raised the question of Ontario health insurance plan coverage for non-emergency medical transfers with the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), he expressed some sympathy in this House but referred the matter to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), who apparently has no sympathy.

If I could digress for a moment, I have with me a copy of an editorial which I read this weekend. It was printed in the Kapuskasing Northern Times on Wednesday, October 22, and refers to this particular matter. The heading reads: “Timbrell Has No Problems Now but May When the Polls Open.”

The editorial begins by saying: “Practically everyone in the north is complaining these days about inadequate air ambulance service. Hospital administrators suggest it is lacking the most fundamental policy. The municipal leaders are working to make it quicker and more comfortable and patients are being victimized.”

I emphasize “victimized” is the word used.

“Yet, despite all of this, Health Minister Dennis Timbrell recently stood before his colleagues in the Ontario Legislature and said no problem exists.”

Further, it says:

“Why the minister would condone a policy which is so bent on supporting only those residing in the southern half of the province is difficult to explain unless one appreciates Mr. Timbrell’s political aims.

“What is unfortunate in all of this is the basic vehicle for service exists.” I will give the minister credit for that; there is a basic vehicle for the service. They go on to say: “Many northerners simply do not know of its workings. It is such people who become snarled in bureaucratic red tape and are the victims of the government paper shufflers.”

They finish off by saying:

“Perhaps Mr. Timbrell doesn’t believe a problem exists now. He may think differently when the Tories come to the north looking for support in the next provincial election.”

That particular problem is an example of what we consider to be the ineffectiveness of this ministry in influencing the policies of other ministries in delivering services to the north.

Mr. Martel: He is good at delivering cheques, though.

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I haven’t delivered a cheque.

Mr. Martel: Oh, yes. In Alban -- for $23,000 -- personally.

Mr. Willdman: Did he deliver a cheque for $23,000?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That was one of the many things I did on that particular trip.

Mr. Wildman: Despite the claim that the Ministry of Northern Affairs had a responsibility for co-ordinating all developmental activities by working with all ministries and agencies, let us look at exactly what the policies say.

3:30 p.m.

The policy for development paper published by this government states that the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs continues to provide the broad, regional economic development direction.

This geographic ministry has failed to wrest the authority to direct economic planning and development for the region for which it is responsible from the ministry whose former head predicted in 1977 the continuation of the status quo in northern Ontario for at least a generation.

Mr. Bolan: Who was that? Darcy McKeough?

Mr. Wildman: Yes, I think that was his name. The Duke of Chatham-Kent.

Interjections.

Mr. Wildman: Last week in the resources development committee during consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, which is also responsible for economic development, I attempted to find the guidelines for defining whether that ministry or the Ministry of Northern Affairs was the lead ministry in proposing and/or funding feasibility studies for economic development projects for northern Ontario. That minister could not explain them very well, other than to say that it depended on the project and that both ministries, as well as others, were often involved.

It seems to me to be very ad hoc which is the lead ministry on Minaki or, for that matter, on a less controversial topic that the minister mentioned in his leadoff, the King Mountain project. In a wider aspect in terms of tourism for the north, who is responsible for negotiating the tourism agreement for northern Ontario with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion? Is it this ministry or is it some other ministry?

If we look at the relationship between this ministry and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications or the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the lack of any real new initiative by the government in establishing a ministry of northern Ontario is evident. The staff and programs of those other two ministries continue to be operated by them. It is true the money that is budgeted to pay for their programs is voted in the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, but the planning of programs, as well as their delivery, as far as I can ascertain, remains with MTC and OMAF.

For example, MTC continues developing its five-year construction plans, but now there is one more step added to the process before a contract is awarded. MA staff must also give it their stamp of approval. This is hardly what we in our party consider a serious attempt to ensure that government programs respond more adequately to northern needs. At present, MA is without the power to direct the budgetary expenditures of other various line or implementing ministries. As such, the ministry is not able to deal with the economic problems that have plagued the north for so long.

Of course, the reason for this is the complete lack of commitment on the part of the government to deal with those problems anyway. Northern Ontario has enormous potential but for 37 years the Tories have failed to turn it to our advantage. The north contains 85 to 90 per cent of the province’s land mass and 10 per cent of its population. It is rich in natural resources, supplying more than $2.03 billion worth of minerals in addition to supplying the raw materials for Ontario’s $5.7-billion forest products industry.

In spite of this tremendous resource wealth, northerners have never enjoyed the advantages taken for granted by southern Ontario residents. Wages are lower and jobs are insecure, health and social services are less available in the north, and little has been done to ensure economic stability.

To a very great extent the economy of northern Ontario remains dependent on the extraction and export of primary mineral resources and forest resource products. In northwestern Ontario, logging alone provides some 40,000 jobs. Logging, sawmilling and pulp and paper production account for more than 60 per cent of the total employment in the region. In the northeast, logging provides about 3,400 jobs, and the forest industry accounts for about 32 per cent of the region’s manufacturing employment. In the northeast, some 16.2 per cent of the work force is employed in the primary resource sector, while 79 per cent of manufacturing jobs are related to natural resource-allied products.

Even though the north contains 15 per cent of Ontario’s productive forest, and more than 90 per cent of the annual ore tonnage is extracted north of the French River, much of the wealth and job creation potential of the north’s resources is lost to southern Ontario and other metropolitan centres. A striking example of this is to be found in the regional distribution of forest-based manufacturing activity. While the north produces virtually all of the province’s timber and pulp, fully 60 per cent of the jobs involved in processing these raw materials are located in southern Ontario.

This northern economic role as a hinterland for the southern metropolis is also reflected in the structures of northern communities. We firmly believe that in order to understand and bring about solutions --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Doom and gloom -- same as you said 10 years ago.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, nothing has changed.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Rodriguez was giving this speech in the House of Commons. Look what happened to him.

Mr. Wildman: The minister never looks at the problems to figure out how to resolve them. He would like to sweep them under the rug instead of dealing with them.

My colleague mentioned one-industry towns. Ontario has 115 single-industry towns, of which 65 per cent are based on the mining or forest industry, and 60 per cent of those communities are located in northern Ontario. These towns exist only as long as companies find it profitable to exploit the resources in the area.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: What have your brothers in Saskatchewan done?

Mr. Wildman: They are doing a great deal. The minister himself mentioned what the Department of Northern Saskatchewan was doing in his leadoff.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s right. They are changing to our system.

Mr. Wildman: I will deal with that in a moment.

Hon. Mr. Walker: We are again providing the lead.

Mr. Wildman: The problem is the government is not providing the lead. It is the private corporations that are providing the lead in terms of development of the north. That is one of the reasons for the problems.

While resource corporations can and often do thrive in this economic environment --

Mr. Martel: When this government was involved, it wiped out the fourth-largest employer in Sudbury.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Wildman: While the corporations can get along well in this kind of environment, undiversified communities and the residents do not fare so well. We can look at the examples of Atikokan and the Steep Rock Mine, Capreol and Marmora. In these communities iron ore mines closed down, as the minister well knows. A major factor in the decision to close down the mines was the acquisition of interests in American iron ore mines by Canadian steel companies which had formerly sourced most of their iron ore in Ontario.

In Atikokan people who had worked for 30 years in the same mine were suddenly out of work. Many of the workers were highly skilled but now must move hundreds of miles to get new jobs. Owing to the physically demanding nature of the work, miners over 40 have great difficulty in getting new mining jobs or in switching occupations.

The economic decline in Atikokan also means that workers who were forced to leave are unable to get back their life savings which they have invested in their homes. Because no alternative industries are developed during the years of prosperity and because Ontario has no means of enforcing the obligations of multinationals which should make the communities and their workers prosperous, mine closings inevitably impose severe hardships on miners, their families and the entire community.

The instability of family and community life in northern Ontario is dramatically reflected in the region’s migration figures. The ups and downs in the economy, frequent layoffs and the relative absence of alternative job opportunities have forced people to look elsewhere for employment.

3:40 p.m.

Ideally, an economy should be built in such a way that it can provide secure employment and a stable tax base to support the essential social and physical services to the community. The problem is that the economy of northern Ontario has been allowed to develop in such a manner that it cannot possibly provide a secure foundation on which stable communities can be built.

As is stated in the government’s own paper Northwestern Ontario: A Policy for Development, the dependence on resources makes the regional economy subject to the uncertainties of world markets -- the government has at least recognized that much -- but, for obvious reasons, resource corporations are able to insulate themselves from the booms and busts resulting from the business cycle through their widely diversified interests.

The shareholders will still get their dividends, even though a mill upon which a whole town depends has been idled for lack of demand; but what happens to the employees, the small businessmen and their families in the community? Even in good times, northern resource-based economies offer fewer job opportunities than the provincial average.

Because of fewer job opportunities, young people, and women in particular, experience higher levels of structural unemployment, or move elsewhere, as my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) referred to in regard to some young people from Hudson. Statistics Canada census figures for 1971 show that northern males had a minimum of 3.2 per cent lower participation than the provincial average, while northern women had a participation rate varying from 5.2 per cent to 8.7 per cent less than the provincial average. No wonder the north has suffered net outmigration.

Lack of a balanced economic development also makes it very difficult for single-industry communities to provide the amenities enjoyed by most southern Ontario residents. Dependence on a largely residential tax base means it is very difficult to provide even the basic municipal hard services without levying very high property taxes and obtaining substantial provincial subsidization -- unless, of course, the community endures that love-hate feudal relationship towards the company of a company town where the services are provided and owned by the employer. The current financial problems facing many northern towns like Hearst, Chapleau and Hornepayne certainly attest to this.

Even if the capital expenditures for educational, social and cultural amenities are carried out to provide facilities needed and to improve community life, it is very difficult to attract the professionals we need to provide health and social services that are taken for granted in southern Ontario communities. As a result, for example, a recent Lakehead Social Planning Council studies found that a shocking 22 per cent of the children in northwestern Ontario had never received dental care.

The shortage of dentists, doctors and especially medical specialists in many northern communities means residents are obliged to travel hundreds of miles for needed medical services, usually at their own expense unless it is in an emergency, thanks to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell).

While the government does have, I will admit, a bursary program and a placement subsidy program to try to attract professionals to northern communities, the problem has not been solved.

Mr. Martel: A faculty of medicine in northern Ontario would do that.

Mr. Wildman: It would certainly help, because one of the major problems we have in attracting professionals to the north is not only the lack of amenities in communities in the north but also the tremendous distance doctors find themselves from their professional colleagues and the way they feel so cut off from new developments in their field.

The dependence of the north on resource extraction also means the north is dependent upon the outside metropolitan areas for a wide range of goods and services. In part because of the long distances from the metropolitan areas, northerners have to pay a great deal more for those goods and services.

For example, the food monitoring report of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for August 1980 shows that virtually every northern community surveyed has substantially higher food prices than those experienced by Torontonians. By contrast, most southern communities surveyed experienced prices lower than the prices paid in Toronto and the situation has not been improving very much. In some of the communities the differential has come down,

whereas in others it has gone up.

It is fine for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to survey it and tell us about it. That is useful, I will admit, but what is being done about it? Obviously, if these problems are to begin to be resolved, the provincial government must become involved in a diversification of the economy of the north. This is where we get away from what the minister likes to refer to as gloom and doom and we start talking about resolution.

The need for diversification is even admitted by the Tory government. Its policy statement indicates that, but unfortunately the Conservatives appear to remain unwilling to do more than mouth platitudes such as: “It is proposed that the government continue an economic development thrust, emphasizing diversification of the regional economy, primarily in activities directly related to the natural resource base. The central economic development objective is to maximize employment and income growth by obtaining greater economic value locally from resources by both upgrading and utilization of these resources and, where economically feasible, further processing.”

That is a quote from a paper on a Northwestern Ontario policy for development, but the ad hoc case-by-case provincial response to northern needs has done nothing to alter the fundamental structural weaknesses of the northern economy, which even the Tories can’t deny. The outflow of jobs and badly needed capital investment continues. The Conservative government backs away from doing what it knows is necessary because it simply does not have the political will to intervene.

The northwestern Ontario policy for development contains the following admission: “While economic diversification is a central policy objective, it is difficult to foresee a rapid diversification of the region’s economy away from its natural resource base unless very extensive and costly interventions were to be made in the market economy.”

They recognize that something has to be done to diversify. They recognize the government would have to intervene, but the Tories can’t bring themselves to do it. They continue to genuflect before the altar of noninterventionist free enterprise by further saying: “It must he kept in mind, however, that while governments can do much to facilitate development in the region, the extent to which such development is realized will depend very much upon initiatives taken in the private sector.”

Who is ideological? The Conservatives continue to accept the cyclical boom/bust nature of the northern economy where investment decisions are private rather than public, and undemocratic rather than democratic. Development is to be left to the large private corporations, the very institutions that have perpetuated the structural weaknesses of the northern economy. A careful reading of that last quotation will reveal that the Conservative government not only pays homage to the private sector, it is also prepared to pay tribute with our money.

3:50 p.m.

Intervention for the Tories avoids costly expenditure on diversification that they admit is required, but it entails handouts of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money in incentives, grants and loan guarantees to the corporations. They have a laudable purpose. They are trying to encourage the companies to do what they should have done in the past but failed to do. Why the government feels that they are now suddenly going to turn around and do it is beyond me.

The recent round of grants to the pulp and paper companies under the employment development fund is a case in point. The extension of the grants, which are expected to total $140 million and result in a net loss of about 600 to 800 jobs, was made necessary because, in the words of the government’s own task force headed by the Ministry of lndustry and Tourism, “Over the past decade the investment to modernize these plants and achieve productivity gains has been clearly inadequate.”

Where have the Tories been for 37 years? The pulp and paper sector is very important to Ontario’s economy, but it is even more important to the northwest. The lack of vigilance on the part of the Conservatives in ensuring an adequate amount of reinvestment in this industry belies their oft-spoken commitments to the towns depending on the pulp and paper industry.

A recent study that has caused some controversy and was done by the economics and forestry faculties of Lakehead University has concluded: “The significant margin between operating costs and projected prices for newsprint, together with the favourable rate of return analysis on new capacity, strongly suggests that this sector is capable of undertaking modernization in northern Ontario on a profitable basis without the support of the taxpayers in the form of the recent modernization grants which were offered jointly by the provincial and federal governments.”

The Premier (Mr. Davis) gets very upset when we quote that statement. He tried to argue that we were opposed to assistance to the pulp and paper industry. He ignores the fact that the vice-president of Spruce Falls Power and Paper said more than a year ago that they did not need any of these grants but, if the other pulp and paper companies were going to get them, then his company had better get them too in order to remain competitive.

Mr. Bolan: He said that again this morning on a CBC radio interview.

Mr. Wildman: My colleague from Nipissing says he still confirms that they did not need the money. I think my colleague would agree that you cannot blame him for saying, “If they are going to give it to us, we are not going to refuse it.”

Mr. Bolan: You can’t blame them.

Mr. Wildman: No. It appears that the government’s negligence is only exceeded by Tory gullibility when dealing with the private sector. The $140 million could, for example, have gone towards the establishment of a crown forestry corporation to begin redressing the reforestation backlog, which represents the real long-term threat to the forest products industry. Alternatively, some of this money could have been used to develop secondary industries.

Basically, the Conservatives do not really believe that the lack of diversification of the northern economy can or should be changed. The Tory view, as stated by Darcy McKeogh in Sudbury in 1977, is that northerners are not being realistic if they want diversification for at least a generation. In the words of the Sudbury Chamber of Commerce, the provincial government’s strategy “can best be characterized as the colonial exploitation of the natural resources of the north for the benefit of the south. It views the north as the supplier of raw materials for the Golden Horseshoe and as a market for its manufactured goods and services.”

In the final analysis, northern under- development has both economic and political causes. The unplanned exploitation of resources by private corporations is assisted by a government whose ideology prevents it from playing an active, constructive and direct role in the management of the region’s economy. Forest and mineral resources are publicly owned for the most part, and yet the Ontario government has chosen to develop them by selling or leasing them to the private sector.

This total reliance on private enterprise has resulted in far too much of the wealth created from the development of the north’s resources being siphoned off by the private sector and used to finance projects outside of northern Ontario, the province and even the country. One only has to think back to Inco’s purchase of a battery plant in Pennsylvania as an example, or their investments in Indonesia and Guatemala. Where did that wealth come from? It came from the north.

The establishment of the Ministry of Northern Affairs by this government has done and will do nothing to change this situation. In fact, if anything, it is reinforcing it. The New Democrats believe that the future of northern Ontario will and can be built on the mining and forest resource industries, but that future is in jeopardy unless these resources are developed to spur diversification to provide for economic security for northern Ontario communities.

It is not only New Democrats who are coming to the realization that economic planning and direction by government is required if a stable economic future for the north is to be established. That former noninterventionist and private entrepreneur, Commissioner J. E. J. Fahlgren, has come to the view that: “The importance of ensuring that northern development takes place in an orderly manner should not be underestimated by anyone. Today we must all face the fact that some of our northern resources are under extreme pressure and that, if economic development is not planned and properly managed, then there will not only be damage to the land but to the people who live there as well.”

Apparently as a result of his work as a commissioner, Mr. Fahgren has come to understand that northern economic development in the past has been characterized by opportunism -- which is the word he uses -- and that that cannot continue. He is no longer willing to leave the economic development decisions only to those in the private sector but emphasizes that all northerners must be involved in economic decision- making.

It is interesting to read Mr. Fahlgren’s news release on the next phase of his study, because he admits that after 50 years’ experience in lumbering, transportation and mining, he has changed his opinions as a result of his studies on the commission. He now believes that economic development must be controlled and based on sound planning.

He points out that he has come to the view that “economic development can be handled in more than one way.” He is no longer stuck with the ideological blinders that this government seems to be wearing, that there is only one approach to development and that is through the private sector. Mr. Fahlgren defines development control as “being able to change the conditions which promote or discourage different economic endeavours.” One of the conditions he points out is the factor of supply and demand.

I urge the Tories here and this minister at Queen’s Park to consider very carefully what the commissioner is saying, since his is not a spur-of-the-moment conversion but obviously a seriously considered change of opinion based on thoughtful analysis of the potential and problems of the north.

Like Mr. Fahlgren, we in the New Democratic Party believe that economic planning and control are required if we are to stabilize northern economic growth. The overall goal of the Ministry of Northern Affairs in an NDP government will he to diversify the northern economy by building a much- strengthened secondary manufacturing sector while solving the problems of one-industry towns in the process.

4 p.m.

By achieving this goal, we would flatten the peaks and valleys of the boom-bust cycle and eliminate the economic and social disparities within northern Ontario and between northern and southern communities. Northerners would gain control over their economic and social future, a control they have never had and still do not have.

New Democrats are confident in the north and in northerners. We have such wealth; we have many skills now and they can be developed further. I only wish the Tories could share this confidence in northerners.

In acting to achieve economic diversification, an NDP government will be guided by a number of general principles:

1. The benefits of northern development must accrue primarily to the inhabitants of the region.

2. Priority must be given to developments that will help make Ontario generally, and northern Ontario in particular, less dependent on outside imports.

3. Special assistance will be extended to locally owned businesses.

4. Meaningful local input into planning decisions will be required.

5. Development, particularly in the area north of the 50th parallel, will emphasize the benefits to northern native people and the recognition of the traditional lifestyles and development goals of the native people.

6. Government will assume a direct, positive and aggressive role in northern development via comprehensive planning, public ownership, crown corporations and joint venture projects with the private sector.

All the economic tools I just mentioned have been utilized not only by that Socialist government in Saskatchewan, but also by the government in that Tory bastion, Alberta. Why can’t the Tory government in Ontario use them all as well?

In a manner consistent with the above principles, NDP strategy will use public ownership of the natural resource base to develop the means for further processing of the north’s forest and mineral wealth. At the same time, secondary industry, such as mining and forestry machinery, related to the resource sector, would be created in the north.

New Democrats believe the social consequences of northern underdevelopment are so important that the government must use all the means at its disposal to eliminate them. Public sector development of our publicly owned resources is a natural way for the community to assure advancement of the interests of its members.

To reject the use of public enterprise to bring about a self-reliant northern economy is to perpetuate the north’s role as a resource colony. The New Democratic Party rejects any such self-imposed limitation. Total reliance on incentives to the private sector, as Liberals and Conservatives have done, has maintained an economy in the corporate interest and failed to develop a diversified and stable economy in northern Ontario.

Our strategy for northern development would have two thrusts: regional and community development aimed at achieving economic self-reliance. Regionally, the first priority is to bring about stability in the resources sector by ensuring the planned development of renewable and nonrenewable resources. Planning agreements would be negotiated with private companies, with reinvestment in job creation targets required. Crown corporations would be created, patterned after Petrocan, as a window on the private sector so that the government has a role and knows what is going on in those areas.

In these ways, the government could gain some control of the pace of development and integrate into overall investment and manpower policies.

A publicly owned mining development corporation with the responsibility to explore and develop mineral resources could have ensured that Bending Lake iron ore deposits were developed, rather than the passive weak-kneed approach of this government to the fate of Atikokan at the hands of the private sector.

By the way, I wonder if the minister can report on the progress of the cabinet committee on the future of mining towns. Whatever happened to that committee? I do not think this minister is the chairman. I think the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) is supposed to be the chairman of that committee. It would be interesting, though, if this minister could report on how many times that committee has met, what progress it is making, what new initiatives it intends to take to try to resolve the boom-bust cycle in northern mining towns.

Since both the private sector and the Progressive Conservative government have failed to adequately regenerate much more than one third of the cut-over area, and while it is anticipated that another one third cannot regenerate in nature, we are now faced with an enormous backlog of barren land.

The recent Lakehead University study for the royal commission, which I referred to earlier, stated: “Fibre supplies are inadequate to support existing manufacturing capacity without major improvements in utilization or the return of large areas of forested land to industrial wood production.”

Obviously action has to be taken. An NDP government will establish a crown corporation to redress the current legacy of Conservative neglect and ensure a wood supply sufficient to guarantee the future of northern Ontario’s forest industry and the towns dependent upon it.

The second priority is to diversify the regional economy through the creation of a secondary manufacturing capability. First, planning and development agreements with the private resource sector could ensure Canadian content requirements for resource extraction, machinery and parts. This would encourage firms such as Jarvis Clark, our one ruining machinery manufacturing success story. It would be interesting if the minister could explain why Jarvis Clark’s planned expansion is going ahead in southern Ontario instead of the north.

Our great potential for import replacement in mining machinery provides us with a very high job creation opportunity. We could provide 4,580 direct jobs in the mining machinery industry with the potential of 9,160 spinoff job opportunities. The crown- owned mining machinery corporation would begin the task of turning around our trade deficit and creating badly needed secondary manufacturing jobs in northern Ontario.

Other import replacement opportunities exist in household furniture manufacturing and in the utilization of wood waste for energy, such as methanol fuels. It would be interesting to see why there has not been the kind of regional economic thrust directed by this ministry that would help to bring about the development 0f those kinds of industries in northern Ontario.

To develop self-reliance through local linkages and import replacement at the community level, the ministry, under an NDP government, will assist in the development of local inventories of potential and needs, in conjunction with the local communities and other ministries and agencies.

As the technical resources available to small northern communities in any drive to become self-reliant are limited, there is an urgent need for an agency to provide advice and assistance and to determine appropriate technologies for new enterprises. To this end, the New Democratic Party will establish a northern technological research and development institute similar to institutes that have been set up in a number of American states by the governments there. The emphasis of such an institute would be on local control and local resources.

I wonder whether the minister could explain why his ministry rejected such a proposal last summer. Is his assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Aiken, correct in stating that MNA’s mandate does not provide for the establishment or the operation of such institutions? If so, which government agency has such a mandate? We think the MNA should.

In our view, an initial study by such an institute would come up with the most obvious areas of import replacement at the community level, such as food production and small energy generation, to provide jobs and lower price differentials in these northern communities.

4:10 p.m.

Such an active role in economic development, rather than the present passive one, is not pie-in-the-sky; it can be realized and financed. The stimulation in the mineral sector would contribute to increased revenues resulting from increased production while all existing provincial development expenditures would be redirected.

Also, an NDP government would move to capture a higher rate of return for exploitation of the province’s resources by the private sector. The Saskatchewan experience easily dispels the old argument that to do so would scare off investment. Saskatchewan tax revenues from mineral production -- excluding oil and gas, I emphasize -- are much higher than Ontario’s, something like 13 times as high. Mining expansion there is booming, while the industry here is stagnating.

The increased resource revenue would be used to create the Northern Ontario Tomorrow Fund modelled along the lines of the Saskatchewan and Alberta heritage funds, which this party has proposed in the House in the past. The expenditures from this fund would be directed exclusively towards northern economic and social development programs. An active development role, such as the one I have outlined, would require a complete reorganization of the Ministry of Northern Affairs and its relationship to other ministries to parallel much more the development of the Department of Northern Saskatchewan.

The minister mentioned the Department of Northern Saskatchewan in his leadoff and again today. He argued they were coming closer to the present situation we have today in northern Ontario in the Ministry of Northern Affairs. The leader of our party and a number of other colleagues, including myself met with the Minister of Northern Development in Saskatchewan last March -- among other ministers of that government and the Premier -- and we had some very interesting discussions.

As the minister knows, the Department of Northern Saskatchewan is a line ministry, one that not only co-ordinates government response to the northern part of that province and the communities and residents there but also does the regional and local planning, with input from the local communities. It designs programs to bring about economic and social development for that part of the province.

It is true that the Department of Northern Saskatchewan is moving to allow for more community and local input. That is more akin to a municipal component or a local services board component than it is to bringing other ministries of other departments of the government of Saskatchewan into delivering services.

Mr. Haggerty: Are the fire trucks red or yellow now?

Mr. Wildman: The fire trucks are yellow, and so is this ministry when it comes to dealing with the private sector.

Much has been written about the problems of the north, and there is substantial agreement about the nature of those problems. I think we all recognize the great potential we have in northern Ontario. However, very little action has been taken to actually redress the fundamental structural barriers to the development of a more self-reliant society in northern Ontario. The New Democratic Party proposes a northern development strategy that will help northern Ontario to move from its role as a resource colony and build a more equitable, stable and just social and economic environment for its people.

The necessary human and material resources exist to make a self-reliant northern Ontario society possible. The missing ingredient is a government with a political will to make available resources work for the people of northern Ontario rather than for the benefit of outside investors. This party has that will. When we become the government of this province, the Ministry of Northern Affairs will become a vehicle for the economic and social development of a self-reliant economy and society in northern Ontario.

The Deputy Chairman: Does the minister wish to make any reply at this time?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a few responses that I am sure the members would want me to give them. I must begin by thanking my critics for their strong support of the concept of the Ontario North Now pavilion established at Ontario Place. The support they have shown for the concept is most encouraging. I think we all agree that in Ontario North Now we have a permanent northern showcase that can truly put the case of northern Ontario before the people here in southern Ontario. It is an educational process, one we know will educate the people of southern Ontario in the way which the members have addressed themselves in the last couple of hours of this debate.

I want to refer to some editorials which I am sure the members have read and which they would want me to put on the record with respect to Ontario North Now. I refer to the editorial that was in the Sault Star. It said: “Algoma views the establishment of this type of permanent exhibition as a very positive development for northern Ontario and northern industry in particular. It will afford the north an opportunity to break down some of the misconceptions that exist in southern Ontario and provide a chance to have exhibits in our major marketplace.

As a major employer in the north and in Ontario, we view this as being a good opportunity for us to work on behalf of the region and our employees.”

There is an interesting comment from the little paper up in Ignace. As members know, we brought down the media from northern Ontario so they could have a first-hand look at the pavilion, see for themselves what it was all about and report accordingly. The editor of the Ignace Driftwood newspaper in a story dated August 20, 1980, went on to say: “I want to go on record as saying I appreciate the effort made by the Ministry of Northern Affairs. I have some criticism myself about certain aspects of the thing, but then why not?

You think of something that was dreamed up and created in such a short period of time that would not have bugs in it or invite criticism. This is going to be a permanent thing, and the years will iron out the bugs and the creative input of the public here and in southern Ontario will fill in the gaps.”

I think the editorial in the Daily Press in Timmins was one I am sure all members read with a great deal of pride. The headline was: “There is Unity in Strength.” It went on to say: “Something significant has happened in the past nine months, a development of importance to every resident in northern Ontario. The power groups actually got together and worked towards a common goal. What this means is there existed, only for a short time and only because of special circumstances, a common front with dimensions merely dreamed about in the past. The lesson to be learned is that what happens once can occur again.

The project which brought about this minor miracle was Ontario North Now. It is called a pavilion. It is really a cluster of nine structures of Ontario Place, the exhibition and recreation complex which sits above Lake Ontario adjacent to the Canadian National Exhibition grounds in Toronto.”

In the Dryden Observer, a very well respected paper in northern Ontario, the final paragraph of its editorial dated August 20, 1980, said: “Ontario North Now portrays northern Ontario as a land of opportunity, a vast, diverse area in which there is room to develop the economy in many directions and in which people can grow. As a means of providing knowledge and stimulating interest, the theme park is a worthwhile investment.”

That was the general theme and general thrust of the reaction to the pavilion. It is something that will be with us for a long time and, of course, will give us an opportunity to put our best foot forward in the months and the years ahead.

4:20 p.m.

The member for Nipissing (Mr. Bolan) made the comment that there was no consultation with the people of northern Ontario, and he made reference to the requests, I believe from the city of North Bay, for some financial assistance. He is wrong on both counts, because there was extensive consultation, and that consultation went on with various people in the municipalities.

In fact, there is an alderman from North Bay who was on the committee that worked with the Association of District Municipalities, an association that takes in representation from the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities in the northeast and the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association. As the member knows, they were partners with us in the development of that northern Ontario showcase.

But at no time -- and this was one of the things we made absolutely clear -- were municipal taxation dollars to be used in the development of this showcase here at Ontario Place. We made it very clear that we needed the support of the municipalities. They would have the responsibility of making sure that the northern thrust and the northern displays were to their liking. They would, with our assistance, go to the private sector and obtain funds from the private sector to display their side of the story -- and they were very successful, I might say.

So to say that there was no consultation and that municipal tax dollars were used in the development of Ontario North Now is not correct; in fact, it is entirely wrong. I want to make that very clear, and I want the record to show that this was a joint effort by this ministry and this government and the people of northern Ontario, both the municipal leaders and the private sector.

There was some question as to the development of the pavilion itself. We did call for proposals for the concept of Ontario North Now. Some five were submitted. The most interesting one, which was selected by the Association of District Municipalities, came from a firm in London that had some knowledge and experience in northern Ontario. The proposals received from northern Ontario -- I think there were two or three -- did not really meet the requirements and expectations of the Association of District Municipalities so we went along with their selection of the firm from London, Ontario.

The member for Nipissing also questioned why we would develop such a tremendous showcase here in southern Ontario and invite people from all over the province to come and see that particular northern Ontario showcase. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that to develop a showcase like this in northern Ontario would have been absolutely ludicrous, because the converted people are already in northern Ontario. There is no need to convince the people of northern Ontario where to live or what to do, or of the potentials of northern Ontario, because they are very familiar with what goes on.

They live there because they want to live there. They want to be part and parcel of that very large, growing and expanding area of this province.

To have developed a showcase in Cochrane, Moosonee, North Bay or Sudbury would not have fulfilled the desires or ambitions of the people who live in northern Ontario in trying to change the attitudes and the misconceptions some of the people in southern Ontario have about the north. Our approach is obvious to get the biggest bang for our buck -- and we got a big bang for our buck, because well over 80,000 people visited Ontario North Now in the short time it was open. Of course, next year we will go on to attract even greater visitations from all across the province and the United States and around the world.

Sure, there were weaknesses in our presentation but, as I have said so many times, we invite constructive criticism with regard to the displays in that pavilion. We know there were gaps; we know there were weaknesses. We have received many complimentary remarks with always a little suggestion as to how we can improve, and we are accepting this with a great deal of enthusiasm. The special review committee on the thrust of Ontario North Now is meeting on an ongoing basis, reviewing all the criticisms and suggestions that have come in.

We are having a post-mortem, so to speak; thus, many of the suggestions to which the honourable members have made reference will be incorporated in the displays next year.

Recognition of the trappers is a typical suggestion we received from other areas; while they were not present or were not displayed in the manner that they or the member for Nipissing would have liked, I can assure him this ministry is cognizant of the contribution that the 10,000 trappers of this province make to the economy of northern Ontario.

It was our ministry, in co-operation with the Ministry of Natural Resources, that developed a more humane trap, something we have been striving to obtain in this province for many years. The Ministry of Northern Affairs showed an interest, put its money where its mouth was and got on with the job of finding one. Now we have one that I am sure will be used by the trappers of this province. So, in all likelihood, they will share in a greater way in the display we will have in Ontario North Now next year.

The member for Nipissing made some reference to

section 113 as it relates to Silverfields in Cobalt. The Minister of Natural Resources, as all members are aware, is down in committee at this time defending the spending estimates of his ministry. 1 strongly suggest the members go down and ask the question. They are free to do so.

Mr. Bolan: What is your policy? What did you do in cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would like to tell the honourable member what I did in cabinet, but what we do and say in cabinet is confidential. I can tell him that the Minister of Natural Resources can defend his policy. Certainly I was part and parcel of that decision; so I would encourage him to go down and ask the question of the minister who is directly responsible for that issue. While I had input into that decision, the decision was made and I make no bones about it.

Mr. Bolan: What was it? Why don’t you speak on it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Go down and speak to the minister. He has made several statements in this Legislature, and the honourable member is trying to use it for political purposes. He is trying to bend and twist arid whipsaw one minister against another, and he is just not going to do that.

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: The Minister of Northern Affairs has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The honourable member also raised the question of the Ontario home renewal program. He was very complimentary to that program, and certainly I appreciate his comments on that.

Mr. Bolan: It was complimentary to the government, not to your ministry.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Wait until I finish. The member is not going to get away that easily. I think he is not aware of what my ministry is doing in northern Ontario as it relates to OHRP. We, in the ministry, who are very efficient, have had 29 northern affairs officers administering many parts of OHRP throughout the north. We are very much aware of the need to continue that program and to improve it. I can tell my friend right now that I will support any request the Minister of Housing (Mr.

Bennett) makes with respect to expanding OHRP for this province, because I agree with the member for Nipissing that it is a very worthwhile, positive program, and I can support with enthusiasm anything that will improve the housing stock of our province.

4:30 p.m.

The member mentioned deregulation and the high freight rates in northern Ontario. He is aware that my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) tried for some time to bring in deregulation in the trucking industry. However, because of the pressure from the opposition during this minority government, that was not possible.

The thrust and the urgent desire of that particular minister and that ministry to do something about the trucking rates in northern Ontario were thwarted by the opposition members, The people in northern Ontario are aware of our efforts to do something about freight rates. At one time, as members are aware, we did bring in an 18 per cent reduction in the Ontario Northland Railway freight rates.

Mr. Wildman: It did not do any good.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It did not do any good. The member for Algoma recognizes that, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Bolan: It didn’t do you any good. Why didn’t you make a better effort?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The thing is, we made an effort. It cost this government and the ONTC several million dollars, but it was not passed on. It is all right to criticize, but we also need some constructive criticism and some ideas.

Mr. Wildman: Why didn’t the federal Liberals lower the CN and CP rates?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You cannot do that. If the member for Nipissing were really sincere, what he would be saying to the federal government is that we in north --

Mr. Bolan: Talk to the issue.