Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: We are always pleased to welcome distinguished guests to our Legislature. This afternoon in the Speaker’s gallery we’re pleased to have with us Mrs. Ila Roy, an MP from West Bengal in India. We welcome her here.

Mr. Jones: In the west gallery are students from a school that hears a name of tradition in this House. I would ask the members to join me in welcoming 35 grade 12 students, accompanied by Mr. Sands, from Thomas L. Kennedy Secondary School in the new riding of Mississauga North.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I would like to introduce to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House 98 students from the Port Dover Composite School under the direction of Mr. Black and I would like you to welcome them here today. They’re in the east gallery.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I thought I might just make some informal comments on yesterday’s meetings of the Ministers of Finance. There were also present Ministers of Labour, some Ministers of Consumer and Commercial Affairs, Ministers of Housing and ministers responsible for the public service. There were six agenda items. I might just mention each one of them and make a brief comment, and I think it may open the way for some questions at the appropriate time. The chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board was present.

There was no discussion on the legislation, which is now, I guess, about to go to the third reading stage in the House of Commons. We urged on the chairman, recognizing his problems, the need to get started, to make benchmark decisions which I think would be of help to a great number of other disputes, or potential disputes, on the salary and wage side.

He also indicated to us that they were commencing to monitor prices. There was some discussion on that score as well, with some provinces holding the view that with significant price changes not only should notice be given, but perhaps they should be sent to the board before they were implemented. The government and the board, as I saw it, undertook to take that point under consideration.

There was considerable discussion about the need for flexibility as opposed to getting on with it, and I am not just sure what the approach is. In fairness to the board, and I do make that point, I gather that the board to some extent is unable to proceed as quickly as it might like, because it is waiting for the regulations, which in turn are waiting for the passage of the bill. So if there is, in the media this morning, criticism on my part of the board, it should be tempered by the fact that I understood the position that they were in, although it wasn’t entirely clear to us, to be quite frank, as to how far the board can go without the regulations.

There was considerable discussion on professional fees and incomes, and I would sense that the conclusion of the government of Canada would be that all provinces will do their best to ensure that the various billing practices of the professions are in fact frozen, and remain as is. I think we suggested also that in lieu of surtaxing, all professionals should be required to file -- not just those of the large firms or in the upper quartile of the various professions in terms of income -- and the government undertook to take that under consideration.

The third agenda item was pricing in the government sector. I can only report that there was a very, what I would call, bureaucratic discussion. It was agreed that the officials would take a less bureaucratic look at that whole subject and report back to another meeting, to see if they couldn’t find a more reasonable approach which would result in agreement by all 11 governments -- which is something which obviously is important, but which has a great number of variations in its approach.

Mr. Nixon: What’s a bureaucratic discussion? Nothing can be done?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No; I think not at all. I think the bureaucrats and perhaps to some extent the politicians became bogged down in the details’ rather than the general thinking. We are talking about fiscal powers of government, which in many instances -- in all instances, supposedly -- are outside of guidelines. But as to where that breakpoint is, I think they attempted to define it too closely, which raised a whole set of questions which perhaps aren’t all that important.

There was discussion on marketing boards. I believe my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman), will have something to say about the position taken by Ontario, and I think agreed to by the government of Canada.

Discussion on rent controls was simply that there had been a meeting of the Ministers of Housing the previous day, and that all provinces have some sort of rent controls. Mr. Basford expressed the view that it was too bad there wasn’t a greater uniformity of approach but, so be it, they were either in place or going into place.

There was a discussion over the model agreement and the model agreement was only available under section 4(3) and not under section 4(4). The discussion wasn’t as conclusive as it might have been and the position of the provinces wasn’t as conclusive as it might have been because the 4(4) agreement wasn’t available and because the regulations were not available.

I think the view of most provinces, and the view which I expressed after the discussion yesterday, was that we would prefer to opt in under 4(3) but that although the life of the programme totally -- assuming the legislation is passed by the Parliament of Canada -- will be three years, we would prefer to have the right after 18 months to opt from 4(3) to 4(4).

Mr. Lewis: That is called the shifting of ground carefully.

Mr. Renwick: In a very informal way.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I don’t think there was any shifting of ground whatsoever.

Mr. Lewis: If there hadn’t been, you would have had a written statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister is making a statement.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Macdonald undertook to take that view of the provinces under consideration and to discuss it with his colleagues.

There was some discussion about provincial nominations to the board from the public sector and that was laid over.

No doubt there will be questions on those various points but I thought perhaps it was best by way of statement to give a general outline of what had gone on yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing.

Mr. Nixon: Now, let’s hear it. The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) comes after you, so be careful.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing has a statement.

Mr. Roy: We are with you. Give it to them. I am with you.

Mr. Nixon: Will the real John Rhodes please stand up?

Mr. MacDonald: That is the first acknowledgement of a non-statement we have ever seen.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Can we get on please? The Minister of Agriculture and Food.

POSITION OF MARKETING BOARDS IN ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Hon. W. Newman: In relation to the Treasurer’s statement yesterday regarding the meeting that was held in Ottawa, which I attended, as hon. members are aware the Province of Ontario presented its views on several matters relating to the federal anti-inflation programme to a special federal-provincial meeting of finance ministers held in Ottawa yesterday.

The question of whether marketing boards should be placed under the purview of the Anti-Inflation Board came in for discussion and I would like at this time to inform the House of the precise position the government of Ontario presented and which was subsequently endorsed by the federal Minister of Finance, Mr. Macdonald.

We agreed yesterday with the federal government that in general principle the spirit of the guidelines should apply to marketing boards. In the case of national marketing plans, the federal Farm Products Marketing Council will be responsible for ensuring that national marketing agencies -- at present for eggs and turkeys -- follow the spirit of tin guidelines.

In the case of provincial marketing plans, the Farm Products Marketing Board and the Ontario Milk Commission will be responsible for ensuring that provincial marketing boards follow the spirit of the guidelines. Price appeals heard by both the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Board and the Milk Commission of Ontario will take into account the spirit of the anti-inflation guidelines. Written reasons on all pricing appeal decisions rendered by these two provincial bodies will be sent to the Anti-Inflation Board.

Initially, the federal guidelines provided only for cost pass-through in allowing for increases in prices. What this means is that the price of a commodity could not increase except to the extent of an increase in input costs. I pointed out to Mr. Macdonald that, while this principle was acceptable in general terms, it could not be applied inflexibly. The reason for this is that it may be necessary in certain circumstances to increase prices by more than increased input costs in order to assure continuity of food supplies to our people. Mr. Macdonald accepted my position on this matter.

Mr. Nixon: He didn’t know what it was because you came down on both sides.

Mr. Renwick: He didn’t understand it.

Mr. Foulds: Even the minister himself didn’t understand it.

Hon. W. Newman: Oh, I understood what I was saying all right. Additionally, I will be inviting the Anti-Inflation Board to Ontario to meet with me, the Farm Products Marketing Board and the Ontario Milk Commission, to clarify our views, to discuss the various pricing formulas and cost inputs used by the marketing boards, and to discuss any other administrative details.

[2:15]

Mr. Lewis: You’ve certainly changed your position since the Ontario Federation of Agriculture speech.

Hon. W. Newman: No, I haven’t a bit. If you would just listen.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, you did.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: You’ve backed right off.

Hon. W. Newman: We in Ontario have nothing to hide regarding our marketing boards, and I want the Anti-Inflation Board to know this.

Mr. Renwick: This is change-of-policy day.

Hon. W. Newman: We want our marketing boards to operate within the spirit of the guidelines, without adversely affecting the long-term supply situation of any much-needed agricultural commodity.

Mr. Lewis: Boy, have you shifted ground. It’s like a revolving door. First the shifting sands of the Treasury --

HOME BUYER GRANT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) should go first this time.

Mr. Lewis: This will be enough of these silly statements.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- I want to rise on a point of personal privilege regarding --

Mr. MacDonald: Misquoted?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- a headline in the Toronto Star of Nov. 26.

Mr. Lewis: What about the Globe and the Sun?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I feel that the headline grossly distorted the remarks I made in Ottawa and the story that was under the headline.

Mr. Deans: So what? That happens every day.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I want to make it very clear to the members of this House and others that I have always, and do presently, support wholeheartedly the purpose of the programme as it relates to the first-time home buyer grant.

Mr. Nixon: Even though it’s “a gross error” and “utterly silly”?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: In the course of the interview that I was conducting, in being talked to by reporters in Ottawa, my comments were that I felt that if the programme was to be continued, indeed there should be a ceiling on the price of the homes to which the grant would apply.

Mr. MacDonald: We suggested that 10 months ago.

Mr. Nixon: That doesn’t sound like the minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: My comment was that I felt the figures we had showed there were homes at a very high price that were eligible for this grant, and that if it was to continue I would prefer to see a ceiling on the prices.

Mr. Roy: Did you use the word “silly”?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, to say that the programme has been a failure, of course, would be totally untrue.

Mr. Nixon: It is much too successful.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The total number of grants has been 31,679. Of those units, 26,176 were in the price range of up to $50,000, 82.6 per cent of the total number of grants. In the $50,000 to $75,000 area -- 5,144 units; 16.3 per cent. From $75,000 to $100,000 -- 279 units; 0.9 per cent. In $100,000 and over -- 0.2 per cent. Regional distribution of the 80 high-priced units shows Metro with 16, Mississauga 52 and other parts of the province 12.

My remarks -- and I do wish to emphasize this -- were not at all to be critical of the programme, which has been a success and an excellent programme, but were simply to state -- as I did at that time and was correctly reported in the paper as saying -- that I felt it was silly to be giving grants to people building $100,000 homes.

Mr. Roy: There you go arguing.

Mr. Nixon: Does the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) feel better now?

ROLE OF PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANTS

Mr. Speaker: Just before we call the next order, I would like to say that on Monday, Nov. 4, I informed the House that I had requested the chairman of the committee on the fourth and fifth reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature to consider the question of parliamentary assistants’ participation in the question period. I am informed by the chairman of the committee that its initial consideration is that for the time being the present practice be continued.

Mr. Renwick: That’s very daring.

Mr. Speaker: The committee intends to make fuller recommendations on the question period, including this matter of participation by the parliamentary assistants, in the near future.

Oral questions.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: A question first to the provincial Treasurer, if I may.

Mr. Roy: The member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) won again.

Mr. Lewis: Is the provincial Treasurer saying that if some of the regulations are not palatable to Ontario under the memorandum of agreement when it emerges, or under the guidelines when they are passed; and if the benchmark decisions are not what he would consider acceptable, and if Mr. Macdonald doesn’t accept the Treasurer’s 18- month formula, is he then prepared to consider opting in under -- forgive the shorthand -- 4(4) rather than 4(3)?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t keep track of all those ifs --

Mr. Shore: There were only three.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- all of which added up to a very hypothetical question.

Mr. Lewis: You framed them.

Mr. Shore: Give a hypothetical answer.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think we have always said that we obviously weren’t into the 4(3) approach until we’d signed it; and we’ve always kept that option open.

We saw the agreement yesterday, but we have not yet seen the regulations -- so I think the question at this moment has to be hypothetical. But I would certainly agree completely with the position of the government of Canada, in that they would like all 10 provincial governments to come in under 4(3).

Quebec is going a different route entirely for its own purposes. I think it’s fair to say at this moment that only one province as of yesterday, and whether they stick to this remains to be seen, will be going under 4(4). There may be others, but Mr. Macdonald -- and I can understand this -- was obviously very disappointed that even one province other than Quebec, was going to go the 4(4) route. He felt very keenly, as we feel very keenly, that if the programme is to work in both the public and the private sector there has to be a uniform approach across Canada.

Mr. Lewis: If I may, a supplementary: Since uniformity is now clearly broken and there are many provinces with strong reservations, the Treasurer sounds as though he’s hedging rather dramatically from the very strong position he took at the outset and that Ontario may, in fact, join in another way?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If the Leader of the Opposition thinks that words of mine today indicate that I’m hedging dramatically --

Mr. Lewis: Yes, compared to what he has said,

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- he is wrong.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) has just informed the House that the application of the anti-inflation position in Ottawa toward marketing boards is going to be applied by provincial boards, would the minister not now at least give further consideration to the involvement of Ontario through the section 4, subsection (4) alternative, particularly in view of the fact that the continuing teachers’ strike, as well as other problems in this province, would certainly be assisted by a provincial implementation procedure?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I don’t accept the premise of that. I don’t think for one minute that they would. If there was a provincial board now in place, I don’t know how, in any kind of conscience, the provincial board could render a decision on a dispute from Ontario which was placed before it without lengthy consultation with other provinces operating their own systems and the AIB itself.

Mr. Nixon: How about the Milk Marketing Board or --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I do not think that it would assist.

Mr. Nixon: -- the Egg Marketing Board? They’re going to be provincial.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Obviously, where there is a provincial regulatory agency in place, of which we, as I understand it, really have two, the Milk Commission, the Farm Products Marketing Board --

Mr. Nixon: You have the Education Relations Commission.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, that’s not the same at all.

Mr. Nixon: It has all the power.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It doesn’t. It’s not a regulatory body.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Where there is a provincial agency in place, a regulatory agency -- for that matter that’s also true of the OEB -- then the federal government feels, and I would agree it makes some sense to use that regulatory approach. There is no regulatory approach in place in terms of teachers’ salaries.

Mr. Shore: Supplementary: Could I ask the Treasurer how he reconciles the fact that two weeks ago he said they were going to opt in, and now he’s stating he’s keeping his options open?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Obviously we have not opted in until we have signed the agreement.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come now.

Mr. Nixon: You said you were, at the top of your lungs in this House -- at the top of your lungs.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the hon. minister have a further reply?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I find it a little incredible that a party over there would buy a complete pig in a poke, and say they’ll sign in and give somebody a blank cheque.

Mr. Nixon: That is what you did -- you want only federal control.

Mr. Lewis: Only you would have the audacity to say that -- only you.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Obviously, until the Province of Ontario puts its signature on the dotted line we haven’t opted in.

Mr. Roy: When you are in trouble you start challenging us. You give it away.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There is still the option of not doing so.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

HOME BUYER GRANT

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Premier, now that the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) has expressed publicly his repentance for statements misinterpreted by the media -- as they always are -- can the Premier indicate if he intends to extend the home buyer grant beyond Dec. 31, or has he now categorically decided against it? Does he intend to modify its terms between now and the end of the application of the grant?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m sure, as the Leader of the Opposition has observed, there is nothing on the order paper which indicates the government would be introducing legislation to extend it. I think it would be fair to assume that we will not. The programme itself, as the Minister of Housing has pointed out, has been singularly successful in terms of the housing industry.

Mr. Nixon: It’s an embarrassing success.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the leader of the third party that he may consider it embarrassingly successful.

Mr. Nixon: You have given away $75 million.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If that is the case, I am delighted. The fact is the programme has worked and it has worked very well. The housing industry has been delighted with it, as have the recipients. I’m surprised he isn’t urging us to extend it, as that would be rather consistent with his inconsistent approach to these things.

Mr. Roy: Don’t be silly.

Mr. Nixon: I think it was fraught with gross errors and utterly silly in all its aspects. That’s what the Minister of Housing said.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As for altering the programme for the next roughly four weeks because there was concern expressed by the minister, and we knew there would be, about some situations perhaps where people didn’t actually need the $1,500 or $2,500 -- there has been 0.2 per cent over the $100,000 figure. The problem the government faced was to determine, shall we say, ceiling amounts in various parts of the province. The Leader of the Opposition would know that a ceiling amount on a house in Scarborough could be quite different from the ceiling amount on a house in Chatham or even in Brampton.

Mr. Lewis: Why choose Chatham? That’s not the best comparison.

Mr. Reid: Not for the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Then I will use Scarborough or what have you.

When it comes to administering the programme itself, in order to expedite it, etc. we did run the risk that 0.2 per cent of the total of people probably had no need of the grant, or no incentive in their case was necessary from the funding of the programme. But when one takes 0.2 per cent out of the 100, I have to say I think it has been without question very successful, but it is highly unlikely the programme will be extended beyond the end of this year.

PAPERWORKERS’ STRIKE

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, for the Minister of Labour: Can the minister clear up the apparent confusion which exists about what commitments, if any, or what undertakings, if any, she made to the various municipal officials who met over the prolonged strike in the woods industry? How did some of them emerge with a clear public impression that a commitment to compulsory arbitration had been provided by the minister?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I reported on Tuesday of our meeting with the mayors of the 11 municipalities in which there are paper plants presently on strike. I reported exactly the commitment which we have made to the mayors. We received their petition and advised them that this was one of the alternatives which might be considered and that it would in fact be seriously considered as one of the alternatives. But I did not promise them that it was one of the things that we were going to do within the next week.

Yesterday afternoon in Ottawa I received a telephone call from a newspaper in Toronto wanting to know when I had telephoned Mayor Foucault in Espanola to tell him the cabinet was considering enacting legislation within the next week, which was the report that came across the Canadian Press wire and through the radio system apparently in northern Ontario. I informed that reporter that I had not talked to Mayor Foucault except on Tuesday morning in the presence of all the other mayors, and that is a fact.

This morning Mayor Foucault telephoned me and informed me that he hadn’t made the statement either. He has now laid the blame upon a newspaper reporter in Sudbury who probably must have been in his cups when he made the statement, because Mayor Foucault swears that he was very careful to announce to the press in northern Ontario precisely his understanding of what I had said, which was the understanding of the Leader of the Opposition of what I had said.

Mr. Lewis: Why do you always attack northern Ontario? What’s wrong with you?

I have a supplementary, if I may. Has the minister appointed at any time the equivalent of a fact-finder under the amendments which we provided for the Ontario Labour Relations Act in this Legislature to deal with a situation exactly of this kind? If that initiative has at no point been taken by the ministry, why would she consider compulsory arbitration rather than ordering the companies back to the bargaining table to make a good-faith offer?

Hon. B. Stephenson: As I suggested, this was one route which might be considered along with several other alternatives. We made no commitment to the resolution which was presented by the mayors. We simply said this was one route which could be considered. There were others which we were considering and one which we were pursuing.

Mr. Deans: What were the others?

Mr. Lewis: Can the minister answer the question?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, the alternative we are pursuing at the moment is getting them back to the bargaining table.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Supplementary: The minister indicated in her first answer that there had been a commitment made -- but she didn’t say what it was. I would like to ask what the commitment is to the mayors? I would also like to add that most of the press up there are sober, as are most of the mayors.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if I might say, it was not my personal suggestion that the reporter had been in his cups. As a matter of fact, the elected member for northern Ontario suggested that that must have been his fate when he made the statement.

Mr. Lewis: Who? Mr. Foucault?

Mr. Nixon: Which hon. member from northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Stephenson: The hon. member for northern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we get to the answer of the first question?

Mr. Lewis: Who does the minister mean -- Mayor Foucault?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Foucault suggested it.

Mr. Lewis: He is a Liberal -- what does the minister expect?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m sorry I did not inquire of him his polities. I apologize for that omission. The next time I shall be sure to, thank you.

If I might respond to the question posed by my hon. colleague, the commitment that we made to the 11 mayors was that we would seriously look at their resolution and their position and that it would be considered in the light of the other alternatives which we were considering at the moment.

Mr. Wildman: Is the fact-finder appointed?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The fact-finder -- that question I should answer. May I please answer it now? The fact-finder has, in fact, in one case been appointed -- and has reported verbally only.

Mr. R. S. Smith: What are the other alternatives the minister is looking at? That’s part of my supplementary question.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I think the best alternative would be to get both parties back to the bargaining table to try to resolve the impasse at which they seem to be right at the moment.

Mr. R. S. Smith: We don’t have a strike any longer; we have a walkout.

Mr. Swart: As one of the techniques of getting the companies back to the bargaining table, will the minister inform them that their cutting rights may be in jeopardy if they do not come back to the bargaining table and make a reasonable offer?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, since I have no authority over their cutting rights, I am not likely, personally, to use that mechanism. That is one which might be considered, I suppose; but I have not considered it at all.

MISSISSAUGA INQUIRY

Mr. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Attorney General. Now that the divisional court has ruled that Judge Stortini was not in contempt when he wrote to the Corporation of the town of Mississauga recommending that further investigation would be warranted, will the Attorney General give further consideration himself to an investigation under the Public Inquiries Act into these matters in the Mississauga area and the former municipalities?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would assist my friend if I were to read to him and the House a letter that I wrote to the corporation of the city of Mississauga in reply to a letter that was delivered to me on Tuesday of this week in which the corporation made the same request.

Mr. Speaker: If it’s a very brief letter it will be permitted; if it’s long, perhaps the hon. minister might summarize it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: My friend and his colleagues have been asking.

Mr. Nixon: Perhaps we can revert to statements.

Mr. Speaker: Unless we revert to statements.

Mr. Lewis: Let us revert to statements.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a lengthy answer which would be of importance?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It’s an answer of 1 1/2 pages.

An hon. member: That’s not long.

Mr. Speaker: We will revert to statements momentarily. We’ll keep track of the time. The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The letter is of today’s date, to the corporation of the city of Mississauga.

“Dear Sirs:

“Following the passage of council’s resolution 218, lengthy investigation was conducted by the Ontario Provincial Police into the allegations on which council’s resolution was predicated solely to determine whether any breach of the Criminal Code has been committed. The Crown attorney concluded, after reviewing comprehensive police reports, that no charge was warranted in relation to any allegation made.

“On July 4, 1975, copies of the police reports were delivered to Mr. Noel Bates, inquiry counsel, at which time Mr. Bates was informed that this ministry had serious reservations concerning the legality of council’s resolution.

“Notwithstanding this ministry’s views of the legality of council’s resolution, the inquiry counsel pressed from the outset for extraordinary powers under Part 3 of the Public Inquiries Act.

“However, he failed to provide any evidence to indicate such extended authority would be warranted or beneficial to the inquiry in any way, although he was advised on numerous occasions that his application would require such support.

“I have no desire to, or intention of interfering with the powers and prerogatives of municipal council where such rights are exercised according to law. It would appear abundantly clear from a reading of section 240, and the divisional court decision in this matter, that any contemplated resolution should particularize each allegation to be investigated in the manner set out in the judgement.

“This observation would apply, of course, to the allegations contained in Judge Stortini’s letter to you of Nov. 6, 1975. I would assure you that in the event an inquiry is validly called by the municipality and an application for Part 3 powers, based on firm and specific grounds, is requested, it will be dealt with on the merits, if such powers are available in a judicial inquiry instituted under section 240 of the Municipal Act. Yours truly.”

I might say there are some serious doubts as to whether such powers are available and my view at the moment is that they are not. But in completing my reply to my friend’s answer I would indicate that if there are brought to our attention any allegations and the particulars of any allegations which would warrant any investigation by this ministry, we would be pleased to receive such information.

To date, we simply have not received any such information which would warrant our investigating the matter further or calling for a public inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: We will add three minutes to the question period.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the burden of the letter read to us by the Attorney General leaves it with the council of Mississauga to proceed under the provisions in the sections of the Municipal Act, wouldn’t the Attorney General agree that he bears an overall responsibility, under the Public Inquiries Act, to dispel the uncertainties that have grown up around the allegations and counter-allegations, the courts suits and counter-suits, all of it underlined by the letter from Judge Stortini indicating that he believes there should be a public inquiry? Would the minister not agree that the only way to settle this is to appoint a judge to inquire on the basis of the Public Inquiries Act?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, in my letter, all the allegations referred to were investigated completely by the law enforcement agencies of this department of this province. There simply, at this point, is no evidence to warrant such an investigation.

The letter from Judge Stortini to the Mississauga council, according to an affidavit of Judge Stortini’s own counsel, was written at the request of the mayor of Mississauga and I repeat, Mr. Speaker, if any specific allegations that have not been investigated are brought to our attention, we will certainly entertain any such request. But it’s my considered view that it’s not my responsibility as the Attorney General of this province to use public funds to go on a fishing expedition for the mayor of Mississauga.

Mr. Roy: Taking it, as the Attorney General says, that your investigation and review of the evidence did not disclose any breaches of the Criminal Code, what about breaches under the Municipal Act and what about conflicts of interest which may well have existed? Is this type of evidence not supportive of an investigation, as is suggested by Judge Stortini?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I know of no such evidence of breaches of any provincial statutes.

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary -- probably a slightly peripheral question: What was the implication of your observation that the letter from Judge Stortini had been written at the request of the mayor? Was the implication that Judge Stortini would not otherwise have requested a further inquiry; that somehow he was influenced by the mayor’s request?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The implication would be that it was the view of the mayor of Mississauga, and not the view of Judge Stortini, that a further investigation was warranted.

Mr. Nixon: But surely, if you will permit Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, I think arising directly from the answer made by the Attorney General: Wouldn’t the Attorney General agree that the letter from Judge Stortini was in response to a request from the mayor that, having had what they considered to be a legal, public inquiry under the Municipal Act and having spent many thousands of dollars on it, the least they should have from the judge is a report of his findings that any suggestion that the mayor had dictated to the judge what his findings should be is thoroughly incorrect and irresponsible.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure my friend has available to him a copy of this letter. It is clear on the face of it that it is not a summary of any such findings. We would be very interested in any such findings that were allegedly made by His Honour Judge Stortini.

Mr. Nixon: Why doesn’t the Attorney General call the judge and ask him?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: But there was no such report whatsoever. Again we are left completely in the dark as to what, if any, allegations should be investigated.

Mr. Nixon: To say that it is the mayor’s opinion is wrong.

EDUCATION RELATIONS COMMISSION

Mr. Nixon: A question of the Minister of Education: Has he taken steps to bring the Education Relations Commission up to its full strength of five, since evidently he agrees with their contention they should be holding public hearings as to whether the strike is endangering the education process of the students?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have under consideration some names for appointment to that commission.

Mr. Nixon: Since the strike seems to be becoming a bit of a fiasco, would he not think it is something he should take under more than just consideration and bring that commission up to full strength; if he agrees with them that they should be holding public hearings as to whether they ought to recommend to the government that the strike be brought to an end?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my friend that the Education Relations Commission can operate fully with three people. They constitute a quorum and they can carry out all the powers the Act gives to them.

Mr. Nixon: They are part-time commissioners.

AID TO THIRD WORLD

Mr. Nixon: I would also like to ask the Premier if he is going to present a report to us from the former Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food, Dick Hilliard, who has been travelling the world to ascertain whether the government ought to make matching grants to certain church organizations, which have requested this approach from this province and other provinces in order to assist in relief to the third world?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that question might be properly directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman).

Mr. Nixon: Might I just put a supplementary to the Premier, based on his answer, that I believe it is a matter of government policy, that it is not a matter of agricultural policy.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Did the member have a question?

Mr. Nixon: In fact would he not agree that since the report was commissioned by the government, not the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, that we could at least get the information from the Premier?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite delighted, then, to reply to the leader of the Liberal Party of this province that I shall, sometime later today, speak to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, get from him the most recent information from Mr. Hilliard and then reply to the question from the leader of the Liberal Party tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Nixon: That’s better. All right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All I was trying to do was to expedite the information for the hon. member. If he doesn’t want it this afternoon, then I will get it for him tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Nixon: I would put a question to the Minister of Agriculture --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will get it for him tomorrow

Mr. Nixon: -- that since this matter was sloughed off by the Premier when it was --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is a debating type question. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question of information, fine.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will get it for him.

Mr. Nixon: All right. What has the Minister of Agriculture and Food to report on this matter of high policy?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t listening to the total question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Boy: Is he sloughing it off or not?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This sort of questioning and cross-questioning is wasting time. Does the hon. member have a question now?

Mr. Nixon: Not only this form of questioning but this form of answering. I have no more questions at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Your point of order?

Mr. Lewis: I wanted to follow that question, can I ask --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: If you wish to ask a question directly, all right.

Mr. Lewis: I would like to know how much money the government has wasted on all of that travel.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

ARNPRIOR HYDRO PROJECT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) asked a question earlier this week regarding union hiring practices at the Ontario Hydro project in Arnprior.

I can now inform him and the House that before starting the Arnprior Hydro project a pre-job discussion was held with representatives of various international unions whose members will be employed on the project. As a result of this meeting, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers designated Local 586 Ottawa as the appropriate influencing union local for the site. In a normal course of action Local 586 of the IBEW at Ottawa would refer men from the Pembroke area. However, if not one was available then workers from Ottawa would be sent.

Apparently this is what has happened. As of Oct. 31, only four electricians were on the job. The major electrical contract in Arnprior will commence in 1976. With regard to the employment of electrical workers, any contractor coming on site will be required to live by the terms of its own collective agreement, if one has been signed in the area, or to apply those conditions established by Ontario Hydro, which represents the local influencing rate in the area.

[2:45]

PORT ARTHUR CLINIC STRIKE

Mr. Foulds: A question of the Minister of Labour: Has the minister received a telegram from Local 368 of the Service Employees’ Union and can she inform me what her ministry or government is going to do in the next few days, in a concrete way, to settle the dispute at the Port Arthur clinic?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I received a copy of that telegram just before I came to the House today. I have read it and I have not decided what I am going to do about it yet.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Does the minister feel that the appointment of a fact-finder or a disputes advisory committee, under the amendments that we passed in July, would be advisable in this case in achieving a settlement and in circumventing the obstructionism of one of the negotiators for the Port Arthur clinic?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly one of the routes available, yes.

Mr. Foulds: A final supplementary if I may.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, all right, a final supplementary.

Mr. Good: If you haven’t got the answers how can you ask a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: Make it very quick. If we have very short questions and very short answers it expedites the matter. We will let the member ask another supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister feel that either of those steps would be a fruitful route to take in the next few days?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would have to say, perhaps either one of them might be a fruitful route.

METRIC ROAD SIGNS

Mr. Worton: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: When the highway signs are being changed to accommodate the reduced speed limits, will the minister give consideration to adopting signs in kilometres as well as the present system of miles per hour?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I had given consideration to this possibility and decided against making the overall change to kilometres at this time, because officially it is at least two years or more before Canada goes metric on the highways. We have made the decision to change the signs as inexpensively as possible by attaching a type of decal to the existing signs, which can be done without removing the signs, and then when the metric change-over becomes official we will change the signs at that time.

Mr. Worton: Supplementary: Would the minister not think it would be an opportune time to start educating the people on this route that we will be taking in two years’ time?

Mr. Roy: And save some money in the process.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, I have also thought about this. We now have a few signs on the highways showing distances to the next town or city in kilometres as an educational programme. I believe some of the auto companies are now coming out with, shall we say, bilingual speedometers that show the speed in both kilometres and miles per hour.

Mr. MacDonald: Bilingual?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I couldn’t think of a better word at the moment.

Mr. Reid: What’s that -- French and German?

Hon. Mr. Snow: There’s another slight problem. When we do go to the metric system on the freeways, I anticipate that the speed will probably be 100 kilometres per hour and that does not coincide exactly with 60 miles per hour. So, if we started putting signs up at 100 kilometres per hour when the regulation says 60 miles per hour, there could be a legal difficulty there, because I believe 100 kilometres works out to something like 61 miles.

Mr. Lewis: That’s a deterrent.

SALARY INCREASES BY EDUCATION BOARDS

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked me the other day about the salaries for supervisory personnel in the Northumberland-Newcastle Board of Education. I checked on this matter. The increases that were granted were done after the teacher salary contract had been settled on Oct. 9, and were calculated on a predetermined formula which the board has always had and which it uses automatically. The increases for these supervisory categories were worked out and were enacted by the board by resolution on Oct. 23. They worked out a $7,500 increase for the director, $6,500 for the superintendent, $6,000 for area superintendents and $5,810 for the superintendent of business. These revised salaries, however, after the resolution passed by the board, have been sent to the Anti-Inflation Board in Ottawa for review by that board and the board is presently waiting the ruling of the Anti-Inflation Board.

COW-CALF PROGRAMME

Mr. MacDonald: A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food with regard to the government’s cow-calf income insurance programme: Now that the market price indicates a prospective shortfall of nearly 20 cents as compared with the forecasted 10 cents from your guarantee of 51 cents, will the minister indicate whether this shortfall is likely to result in an increase in premiums next year? Secondly, would the minister give assurances now that any increase in premiums or any other change in the programme will be the result of meaningful consultation and/or negotiation with the appropriate farm organization rather than unilateral action by the government?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have met with the OBIA -- the Ontario Beef Improvement Association -- and we have already discussed this very matter. As a matter of fact, I met with them last week. We anticipated when the markets first came on we could have the average price as low as 30 cents. I said it was somewhere around 33; I think it is going to be closer to 32. We set the premium at $5 a share and I can assure the member we have to look at the cost factors and the input cost factors before any decisions can be made next year. I am quite prepared to discuss it with the OBIA or any other group that wants to discuss it with me.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: What the minister is in effect saying is that there may well be a premium increase next year and therefore I repeat my second question. Is the minister suggesting then that the appropriate organization to discuss this with is the OBIA?

Hon. W. Newman: I didn’t say that. Now, let’s get it straight! The Ontario Beef Improvement Association is a representative of the beef industry.

Mr. MacDonald: Did the minister negotiate with them in the first instance?

Hon. W. Newman: Just a minute, let me finish. There are other organizations too in this province and I recognize them all and they all do a very fine lob. There are a lot of members in the Ontario Federation of Agriculture who are beef producers. There are a lot of members of the Christian Farmers Federation who are beef producers. I am aware that there are a lot of people involved and I can assure the member that before that price was reached last year there was a lot of discussion. We are talking now about an overall average price of somewhere between 32 and 33 cents.

Coming back to the member’s next question on what the premium will be next year, I would hope -- but not until I have consultation with other groups -- that we could keep the premium within reasonable bounds. The member is asking me to take a unilateral decision now on next year without consultation.

Mr. MacDonald: No! I have specifically asked for assurance that there will be consultation with the appropriate farm organizations.

Hon. W. Newman: I am quite prepared to have consultation with the various farm groups involved.

Interjections.

Mr. McKessock: A supplementary on the cow-calf stabilization programme in Ontario: Could the minister explain to the House how the 50-cent ceiling in Ontario is equal to the BC 77 cents --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I didn’t hear that question asked. The hon. member for Rainy River I think had a supplementary.

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the same question --

Mr. MacDonald: Answer the question, but we may have to revert to statements.

Hon. W. Newman: I am prepared to answer that question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Actually, neither the original question or the answer had anything to do with the supplementary. If you want to ask that question later, okay. The member for Grey wishes to ask a new question.

Mr. McKessock: Would the minister explain to the House how the cow-calf stabilization programme in Ontario with its 50-cent ceiling is equal to 77 cents in BC, a statement which he made at the OFA convention on Tuesday night?

Mr. Lewis: He also said that marketing boards wouldn’t come under guidelines.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: I did not! I said --

Mr. Lewis: Nobody understood that speech.

Hon. W. Newman: Nobody understood it?

Mr. Nixon: Tell us the story about the eagle.

Hon. W. Newman: I will tell the member something. The farmers of this province understood that statement --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and that’s what’s important.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. MacDonald: They understood that speech and you will hear about it before you are finished.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are wasting the time of the question period. Does the hon. minister have an answer to that question?

Mr. Good: Maybe the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) should have got this portfolio.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to answer that question but to be quite honest with you, it’s at least five pages long and if you --

Mr. Reid: You’re not trying to be funny?

Hon. W. Newman: I am not being funny and don’t make fun about it because let me tell you --

Mr. Nixon: Fifty cents is equal to 77 cents?

Mr. Reid: If he keeps that up he’ll be Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: It was a great explanation.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, it was a very complicated formula to work out. I will be glad to send the hon. member a copy of it because I know that the opposition is already researching it out. Quite obviously if they’ve researched it out they know it’s correct.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

GREENING DONALD STRIKE

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Does the Minister of Labour have any information available with regard to involvement by the ministry in the Greening Donald strike situation in Hamilton? They’ve been on strike for seven months and it would be helpful to find out if the ministry knows anything about it or is prepared to take any action to try and bring about an end to the situation. And does the minister feel --

Mr. Speaker: I think the question has been asked. Does the hon. minister have an answer?

Mr. Deans: And does the minister feel there might be some indication of interference from outside of the country, from Germany in particular, in the negotiations that are currently taking place?

Hon. B. Stephenson: In answer to the last question, Mr. Speaker, I have no such information. In answer to the first question, the ministry has been involved from time to time, although the time of our last active involvement in mediation was at the beginning of October. There has been no request from either side for a further continuation of mediation since that time, to my knowledge.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: In the report given to the minister, is there any indication of whether there is any feeling on the part of the person reporting to the ministry about the attitude of the company vis-à-vis good-faith bargaining?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have no such report.

Mr. Deans: One final supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we’ll get on, we’re short of time. The member for Armourdale.

PAVING OF SPADINA EXTENSION

Mr. Givens: To the Minister of Transportation and Communications: When will the minister approve the application of Metro to pave the Spadina ditch from Lawrence to Eglinton, now that they have submitted all the relevant data to him?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Very soon, Mr. Speaker.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT

Mrs. Gigantes: A question to the Minister of the Environment: When does the government intend to proclaim the Environmental Assessment Act? And will the minister consider, as a matter of priority, asking for a review of the McCaul-Orde St. switching station by Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We hope to proclaim the Environmental Assessment Act by the end of this year, Mr. Speaker, just as soon as the regulations are ready. The regulations are being compiled at the present time, and as the hon. member will appreciate, this involves other ministries as well as other agencies; but hopefully it will be proclaimed, certainly by the new year.

On the second point, I was under the impression -- and I’m just going by newspaper reports, possibly this should be directed to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) -- but I was under the impression that Hydro had pretty well indicated they would abandon that site.

Mr. Good: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Arising out of the minister’s reply that the regulations will be ready by Christmas, has he acceded to the request of the PMLC that they be consulted in the drafting of the regulations? And if so, has he also acceded to the request of the environmental groups to have input into the regulations of the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As far as PMLC is concerned, I hope to appear before them a week from tomorrow, at which time there will be a review of the regulations that are available to date. I wasn’t aware that certain environmental groups were anxious to have some say in the proclaiming of the regulations.

Mrs. Gigantes: is the minister not aware of a request by the city of Toronto council that the government provide funding for an outside investigation of this switching station? This was dated Oct. 8. Is the minister not aware that the government has not yet seen fit to reply to that request?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That request, I would assume, would either go to Hydro or to the Minister of Energy. I’m not aware of it.

[3:00]

CREDIT RULES FOR WOMEN

Mr. Mancini: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations who has now become the champion of women’s rights. I would like to ask the minister what measures he proposes to take in order to ensure that the companies abide by his new guidelines to provide equality in credit arrangements for women?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, in my statement to the House at the time I introduced the guidelines a few days ago I made it quite clear that these were entered into voluntarily by the companies and organizations named and that we would be monitoring to ascertain whether or not there were any violations of them. We also added that if there were consistent violations, we would not hesitate to use the legislative option.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know why the minister is now so confident that the companies --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a question?

Mr. Roy: Sure.

Mr. Nixon: He would like to know why.

Mr. Mancini: This is a question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This is not a debating period. If it’s a question of further information, fine.

Mr. Mancini: Yes. I would like to know why the minister is now so confident that the companies will enforce equality for women --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not a proper question, as the hon. member well knows. It’s a debating type of question.

Mrs. Campbell: It is?

Interjections.

Mr. Mancini: I would like to know --

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have a genuine supplementary for information, not for debate?

Mr. Roy: Yes.

Mr. Givens: Very sincere.

Mr. Mancini: Would the minister tell me why he believes the companies will now be compliant in enforcing equality for women in credit ratings when they have not been before?

Mr. Roy: Right.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, there was nothing to comply with before. There are now guidelines to comply with.

Interjections.

Mrs. Sandeman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary.

Mr. Mancini: The champion of women’s rights.

Mrs. Sandeman: Is the minister prepared to put a deadline on the time during which he will watch the companies to see if they are going to comply?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I am sure the hon. member would not want me to put a deadline on in case there weren’t any complaints in that time. We will monitor it on a permanent basis and if the time comes that we feel there’s necessity for legislation, we will not hesitate to bring it in.

PROVISION OF SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. My understanding is that the next federal-provincial welfare ministers conference will be held in January to review the proposed federal Social Services Act. I want to ask the minister whether Ontario has developed its position statement for this conference respecting federal-provincial arrangements for the provision of social services and whether the minister will undertake to table the position statement either now or as soon as it becomes available?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I think the member should realize that these are negotiations which are going on and that they cover the whole field of income security, as well as the delivery system of social services, the social programme. As far as the provincial posture is concerned we have been meeting, as members know, over a period of years with the federal government in regard to the renegotiation of the Canada Assistance Plan.

We are currently developing, hopefully, a more formal posture in terms of our relationship vis-à-vis the federal government in regard to the whole field. That position, hopefully including the philosophy of the Conservative Party, will be implicit in the posture we adopt. I don’t expect there will be any formal paper for tabling.

AID FOR EGG PRODUCERS

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: What action is the minister proposing to take to assist the egg producers in the province in view of the CDA report showing increased pullet placements in Quebec while our producers are operating at 62 per cent of quota and have been attempting to hold the line in this regard?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as far as the producers of the Province of Ontario are concerned -- there’s been a lot of comment in the news media lately about it -- I have asked for an extension of our present agreement with Ottawa for six months. I’ve asked for a special committee to be set up to look at the allocations to the egg producers of the Province of Ontario, which is now set at 38.1 per cent. I’ve asked them to have another look at this overall programme to see what can be done to help the egg producers of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: If the placement figures as reported are correct, would this not constitute a violation of the CEMA agreement?

Hon. W. Newman: There is a possibility there are violations of the agreement under CEMA. The power of seizure is granted to the provincial agencies in Ontario.

Mr. Gaunt: That is here in Ontario?

Hon. W. Newman: Here in Ontario. But they have to have approval of the Farm Products Marketing Board before they can do it. I have asked the Farm Products Marketing Board to make a thorough investigation of the allegations that were made last week in the Toronto news media against certain board members who were over quota on hens.

There were a lot of factors involved in this situation. For instance, hens up to 24 weeks of age and under are not included in the overall count. When they get to 24 weeks of age and are at their potential laying age, the actual count takes place. As a result of the controversy, the Farm Products Marketing Board is looking into the whole matter now and I expect a report back in the very near future.

SALARY INCREASES BY EDUCATION BOABDS

Hon. Mr. Wells: I answered a question a few minutes ago about the Northumberland-Newcastle Board of Education and I forgot one very important part to the answer. Pending the review by the Anti-Inflation Board of these increased salaries, the officials are staying at the 1974-1975 salaries until they get the results of the AIB review of the new salary schedule.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

POSITION OF MARKETING BOARDS IN ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, if I may: Earlier in the question period the Minister of Agriculture and Food indicated his statement today that the marketing boards would be under the guidelines did not conflict with what he had said to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on Tuesday last. Again later in the question period he denied he had indicated the contrary to them.

On page 18 of the minister’s speech to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture there is the following paragraph:

“And as for the mutterings from the Anti-Inflation Board about bringing marketing boards under the overall federal wages and price guidelines, I say no, most emphatically no.”

Hon. W. Newman: The hon. member rose on a point of order or a point of privilege or whatever he rose on --

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order.

Hon. W. Newman: I think it’s only fair that I have a chance to answer. He should have listened to my statement today. I said initially the federal guidelines provided only -- and maybe he doesn’t understand this so I’ll go over it very slowly -- provided only for cost pass-through in allowing for increases in prices. What this means is that the price of a commodity could not increase except to the extent of an increase in input cost. I pointed out to Mr. Macdonald that, while this principle was acceptable in general terms, it could not be applied inflexibly. The reason for this is that it may be necessary in certain circumstances to increase prices by more than the increased input cost in order to assure the continuity of food supplies. Mr. Macdonald accepted my position, and that was one of the major points I made yesterday.

Mr. Shore: Did he understand it?

Hon. Mr. Newman: There are extenuating circumstances, sometimes, in which the farmer needs some protection.

Mr. Nixon: The minister sounds like Mackenzie King.

Mr. Breithaupt: Changes if necessary, but not necessarily changes.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Parrott presented the annual report of the University of Waterloo for the year ending April 30, 1975.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

MOTORIZED SNOW VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the Motorized Vehicles Act at the present time prohibits the operation of a motorized snow vehicle in certain circumstances on a serviced roadway, which is defined so as to include the shoulder as well as that portion of the highway normally used by motor vehicle traffic.

Since there are a number of locations throughout the province where the shoulder is so wide that it is not ploughed for its full width this bill amends the definition so as to include only the ploughed portion of the shoulder, as well as that portion of the highway used for motor vehicles. There are one or two minor housekeeping sections to the bill.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATE CONTROL BOARD ACT

Mr. Swart moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to establish the Automobile Insurance Rate Control Board.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to freeze automobile insurance rates effective Nov. 15, 1975. The bill also establishes an automobile insurance rate control board which would have the power to approve and fix rates and to conduct public hearings dealing with rate changes. It is very much a companion bill to compulsory seatbelt use and lower speed limits.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Haggerty moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the concern of the community over the inconvenience of an impasse in a collective bargaining process is at a level which requires serious attention by this Legislature.

The purpose of the bill is to provide a mechanism whereby the minister can order parties to a strike or lockout to end the strike or lockout for a period of 60 days during which time the parties try to reach a settlement.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table answers to questions 5, 6, 7 and 8 standing on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The seventh order, House in committee of supply.

[3:15]

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I have an opening statement and I have to admit to you and to the members of the House that it is a rather lengthy one. I felt that with a number of new members in the Legislature it would be an excellent opportunity to review in detail many of the programmes and the goals and responsibilities of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

At the outset, I must compliment you, sir, on your elevation to chairman of the committee of the whole. I think it is becoming to your experience in this particular House. I hope you would not be totally muzzled by your position as chairman, because I have to admit that in the past we’ve benefited from your active debate, your active participation, in the debates on my particular ministry.

Your knowledge, certainly of the problems as they relate to northern Ontario, is well received --

Mr. Laughren: Careful, Jack.

Mr. Lewis: Of whom are you speaking? Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, get him back to the estimates.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, it’s not a point of order. He hasn’t got a point of order. I wish you would bestow on your illustrious leader some of the information you have.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what I was afraid of. Get him back --

Mr. Nixon: He’s only being provocative. He’s not bestowing --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You forced me into it; you did it to me. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, my congratulations on your elevation.

This year my ministry will be asking for a total budget of $211,270,000.

Mr. Nixon: Ten per cent down next year.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As I said in my brief opening remarks, I would like to review the goals and the responsibilities of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

I think I should point out the official statement of the ministry’s goal is as follows: To provide opportunities for outdoor recreation and resource development for the continuous social and economic benefit of the people of Ontario and to administer, protect and conserve public lands and waters.

Mr. Chairman: Can we have some order in the chamber, please, for a very important ministry.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is the goal of Ministry of Natural Resources.

This means that my ministry is concerned primarily with the management of 90 per cent of this province which is composed of non-urban, non-agricultural lands and waters. Much of this area is in the north but quite a bit of it is in the south too.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is far too much noise in the chamber; will you keep your voices down?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Also, our programmes induce many private landowners to manage their properties in ways which contribute to our goal. The ministry performs a principle role of co-ordination between all the agencies involved in the management of public lands. The ministry’s programmes are concerned with the best use of Ontario’s physical resources of land, water, trees, fish, animals and minerals for recreational and resource product purposes.

As a result, we have a major responsibility for sustaining a supply of renewable resources, and for using and managing the land, water and mineral resources so as to minimize negative environmental effects.

Before getting into the main portion of this statement, I would like to share with my colleagues in the Legislature the sense of loss we feel in the Ministry of Natural Resources after the recent passing of two men who made major contributions to what is now the Ministry of Natural Resources:

I refer to Harold Rickaby who was Deputy Minister of Mines when he retired in 1960, a post he held very capably for some 22 years. A geologist originally, he was a pioneer in the mapping of the mineral development areas in the province and later promoted geophysical exploration. He did much to build a healthy mining programme in this province.

Frank MacDougal, who was known to many of the members of this Legislature, was Deputy Minister of the Department of Lands and Forests when he retired in 1966, after serving in that position for 25 full years. Among the many ways he left his mark was as an enthusiast of flying; not only as a pilot himself but also as a key supporter of the provincial air service with its high reputation in forest fire control as well as resource surveys. He made the lands and forests side of my ministry the able professional group that it is, and the image of the outdoorsman who was called the “Flying Deputy Minister” of course will remain with us for a long time.

In this statement, I plan to lay particular emphasis on two important areas -- the forest regeneration programme and the mining safety programme, the latter recommended in the ministry submission earlier this year to the royal commission on the health and safety of miners.

I will deal with the forest regeneration programme first. I think copies of my remarks were made available to the various members.

Mr. Riddell: Are you going to read them all?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I am going to put them all on the record.

Mr. Ferrier: Can’t we take them as read?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think it is important, I really do. This is the first opportunity I have had in this new Parliament, as I said earlier, to outline to the members just what we do in the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mr. Nixon: Oh yes, well that’s all right. You only have 10 hours to go.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s a good record. It’s a positive one. It’s one we are proud of, and one we will continue to expand upon.

The objective of my ministry’s forest management programme is to protect and manage forest resources to produce economic and social benefits for all the people of the province. Efficient allocation and use of forest resources will provide employment and public income from corporate taxes and other Crown charges. Provincial expenditures will ensure adequate forest resources for meeting future industry and recreation needs, and also provide jobs directly in our ministry’s forestry and recreation programmes.

The forest management process is a complex one. It requires not only long-term planning, but also large capital investments with long-term payoffs. It is important to recognize that forests are renewable resources only when the trees harvested are replaced. This is the central thrust of our forest management programme.

Currently, industry in Ontario is using about 510,000,000 cu ft of roundwood a year from Crown land by agreement with the ministry; plus an additional 180,000,000 cu ft from private land. New mills and mill expansions completed or proposed over the next two to three years will increase this total of roundwood consumption to 850,000,000 cu ft per year by 1978. These new developments will mean an additional annual capacity of 1,000,000,000 bd ft of lumber, 1,000,000 tons of pulp, and over 400,000,000 sq ft of particle board. They represent an estimated capital investment of more than $700 million and will directly provide 7,000 new jobs. When added to the existing 75,000 forest industry jobs, this represents a significant contribution to the Ontario economy, particularly in the north, as I said earlier.

With present utilization standards, the total roundwood demand in Ontario will require 100 per cent of the softwood and about 70 per cent of the hardwood annual allowable cut. Consequently, our forest management efforts must be greatly intensified.

An up-to-date forest resource inventory is prerequisite to forest management planning. In the 1974-1975 forest resources inventory programme, the ministry flew 26,378 sq mis. of aerial photography, mostly covering an area west of Lake Nipigon and north of Lake Superior, the hon. chairman’s area. This photography is being used to facilitate field work and to prepare forest-stand maps. We intend to accelerate the inventory programme in 1975-1976 to almost double last year’s programme. Because of the long-term nature of forestry, it is important to have sound forest management plans to control operations, ensure continuity, and build up background knowledge of biological processes, even on small areas.

Last year the government decided to review Crown timber resources revenues. A task force was set up under the joint direction of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs and my ministry. We asked for a revenue system to be developed which would be more responsive to changes in forest company profits so that government revenues would rise with increasing profits and decline, of course, with decreasing profits of the companies. The task force report has recently been submitted to the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and myself. We will be considering the recommendations immediately.

New logging techniques and transportation methods have had a marked effect on the forest products industry, and hence on scaling practices -- or wood measurement, as some call it. Efforts were made in the ministry to upgrade and maintain standards, to increase efficiency and to reduce unit scaling costs. Since 1968-1969, the introduction of new scaling methods has permitted the ministry to reduce the number of staff employed in timber measurement. While it is difficult to pinpoint actual dollar savings to individual changes in technique, the net scaling costs per 100 cu ft have been reduced from 20 cents in 1968-1969 to 17 cents in 1973-1974. This is a substantial reduction in relation to wood costs and inflation.

Silviculture can be compared to agriculture. It is simply the planting, growing, tending and harvesting of forest crops. Silviculture includes: Seed collection and processing; the growth of nursery and container stock; genetic improvements; planting, seeding, and modified harvest cutting to ensure regeneration and the treatment of established stands to ensure survival and growth. Silviculture involves the assessment of areas regenerated, naturally and artificially, to determine survival, stocking and growth of desired species. Because of the unique problems encountered, it has also involved the ministry in the development of specialized equipment.

Before 1953, northern Ontario had a large, under-utilized, mature forest. Artificial regeneration was thought to be unnecessary in that region. However, in 1953 studies showed that natural regeneration was inadequate and a start was made with artificial regeneration on 11,000 acres. Between 1953 and 1974, some 1,900,000 acres have been artificially regenerated.

I would now like to talk in more detail about the ministry’s silviculture programme, as developed under the --

Mr. R. S. Smith: Considering the need, that is a very poor record.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is an excellent record and we will go into detail on that in a few minutes.

Mr. Haggerty: That’s simple.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Don’t go into detail or we will be here until Christmas.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would now like to talk in more detail about the ministry’s silviculture programme, as developed under the “Forest Production Policy Options for Ontario, April, 1972.” This planning document, prepared by the division of forests, presented a series of options designed to meet environmental needs and sustain the forest industry at various alternative production levels for the year 2020 and beyond. Because silviculture practices carried out this year will produce the wood supplies for the year 2020, the question was: What would Ontario need then?

We decided to provide for an annual harvest, after 2020, of 910,000,000 cu ft -- 50 per cent more than the volume required by industry in 1972. I think that’s a tremendous goal when you look at that -- 50 per cent more in the year 2020 than we have --

Mr. R. S. Smith: That is 50 years away.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I know, but this is the complexity and the difficulty in the task of dealing with the silviculture programme --

Mr. R. S. Smith: What have you been doing for the last 50 years?

Mr. Haggerty: Going backwards?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We put dollars in the ground today and really won’t reap the benefits for 50 years. But that is the kind of long-term planning we do in this particular programme and I want to make a very strong point on that.

Mr. R. S. Smith: You’re talking about your future programme, but what about the past, because it was a mess?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is straightened out now and we are on the right track.

Ministry staff then prepared a 10-year implementation schedule to double the 1972 silviculture effort. This time period is required because of the increased programme and the sequential nature of the silviculture operations.

To support this doubling of the regeneration and tending work during the 10-year period, other improvements must be made. The seed plant capacity at Angus has been increased from about 40,000 bushels of cones to 80,000 bushels -- or in metric terms about 15,000 to 30,000 hectolitres.

To improve survival and growth of some of our important conifers on the more difficult sites, the percentage of transplant stock being grown has increased from 22 per cent in 1973-1974 to 39 per cent in 1975-1976. This improved stock is just now becoming available from the nurseries.

Silviculture is largely labour-intensive, but where possible we are attempting to mechanize. A machine developed by the ministry and now known as the Ontario free planter is being field-tested and several units should be ready for the first operational trials by next year. This rugged machine is designed to operate in the rougher terrain of the north.

A multi-row nursery stock-lifter, to mechanize lifting in the nursery, was field-tested this summer and should be in use next spring. We are co-operating with the Imperial Tobacco Co. to convert a cigarette machine to produce paper containers for growing tubelings. As can be seen, development and improvements of existing equipment is a continuing process.

To promote this policy of increased regeneration, additional money was allocated to the silviculture budget: $2.2 million in 1973-1974; $1.5 million in 1974-1975; and a proposed $3.4 million in 1975-1976, for a total of $7.1 million extra in the first three years, not including inflation allowances.

This money covers salaries, capital expenditures, transportation, services, supplies and support. Increases in permanent staff are necessary to plan and implement the increasing field programme. A total of 98 new staff have been added in the first three years: 50 in 1973-1974, 32 in 1974-1975, and 16 have been taken on this year.

This silviculture policy has been in effect for only two full years and initial assessment indicates we are meeting our overall targets closely. In fact, because of increased direct seeding of jackpine, after the fires last year in the Dryden area, we exceeded our planned regeneration target in 1974-1975.

One additional point: Because of accelerated industrial expansion and increased wood requirements of industry, the forest production policy is being re-examined and the staff of the division of forests plans to complete this revision by March, 1976. There is little doubt that increased efforts in regeneration and the other components of our forest management programme will be required.

Because of the interest shown in forest regeneration by several members, I wish to re-emphasize that the present policy is to increase the area regenerated artificially from 154,000 acres in 1973-1974 to 296,000 acres in 1982-1983. This, together with areas that regenerate naturally, and available mature forest supplies, will sustain an industry, from the year 2020, that uses 910 million cubic feet of roundwood a year.

The 10-year programme was initiated in 1973-1974, and the first two years were close to schedule. In the first year, 1973-1974, the goal was to regenerate 153,689 acres. We completed 145,278 acres. The deficit was about 8,500 acres. Then, in the following year, 1974-1975, the goal was 150,408 acres and 150,604 acres were regenerated -- right on target. In addition, about 25,000 more acres were aerially seeded with jackpine, following the fires last summer in the Dryden area. Therefore, the overall total for 1974- 1975 was 175,604 acres regenerated, which easily made up the small deficit of the previous year. This year, 1975-1976, the target is to regenerate about 183,000 acres, and I am confident that figure will be met.

It is true there is a gap between the amount of area requiring regeneration and the amount that is being regenerated. In 1974, this difference was about 170,000 acres. I repeat, however, that our 10-year programme is designed to reduce this gap.

Funds spent on the silvicultural aspects of our work programme alone represent about 60 per cent of the division of forests’ budget -- $11.9 million in 1973-1974, $13.6 million in 1974-1975, and, we estimate, about $20.5 million in 1975-1976.

In December, 1974, my ministry published the report, “Survival and Growth of Tree Plantations on Crown Lands in Ontario.” This shows the survival and growth, by species and regions, of nursery stock and tubed seedlings five years after planting. For the major species used in the boreal forest -- black spruce, white spruce, and jackpine -- the survival rate is between 61 per cent and 74 per cent, which will provide adequately stocked stands. For container stock, though, which represents about 10 per cent of planted stock, the survival rate for spruce is about 33 per cent, and for jackpine 55 per cent. The reasons for this have been investigated and both growing and planting techniques have been modified. The area planted with container stock will not be expanded until better survival is obtained. We are not satisfied that the 33 per cent is high enough to be in our container stock programme.

One of the primary objectives in the 10-year forest regeneration programme is to expand the use of techniques other than the planting of nursery stock. This is essential because of accelerating costs, as well as the need to regenerate sites where planting is not successful.

The major expansions are planned in seeding and modified cutting. One of the methods available to secure regeneration on certain sites is by modifying the cutting techniques. This includes strip cutting, shelterwood systems, and leaving groups of trees.

Strip cutting was being done on a small experimental basis of about 1,000 acres a year in black spruce stands in the north during the 1960s. The technique is being further developed and expanded as quickly as possible. It requires an accelerated road programme and, of course, better planning of logging operations. Modified cutting techniques are now being used more extensively in the white pine, hard maple, and yellow birch stands farther south. Plans are to increase modified cutting from 22,000 acres in 1973-1974 to 65,000 acres in 1982-1983. By that date, our annual regeneration target will reach 296,000 acres.

A sound silviculture programme requires forest tending as well as regeneration. Tending involves release of trees from competition, weeding, thinning, pruning, and sometimes fertilization and cultivation. Tending promotes better survival, growth, and the quality of the forest trees. It is proposed to increase forest tending from about 69,000 acres in 1973-1974 to 179,000 acres in 1982-1983.

Mr. Haggerty: It sounds like paperwork.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is. We have a great future in the forest industry in this province and we intend to make sure it continues. This is why the efforts are being expanded today.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Doesn’t look so good right now.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, we’ll have it on the rails pretty soon. I can assure you.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Is that a commitment?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s a personal commitment, yes.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Oh, over the head of the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson).

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, I’ll be co-operating with her very closely.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Now we know where the power is over there.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The significant expansion of the forest industry in Ontario has many advantages, but increased costs also come with it. All the forest management programmes of inventory, access roads, forest management planning, wood measurement, and especially silviculture, must be increased.

In summary then, we have a vigorous forest management programme. We are further strengthening our activities in the forest resource inventory, forest management planning, and silvicultural operations -- especially regeneration -- and we will ensure that a fair return is made to Ontario for these valuable renewable resources. My ministry will continue to review and revise our activities and efforts to keep pace with the rapidly changing demands for all uses of our forested lands.

Still on the subject of forest management, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs have jointly developed a programme of tax reductions on privately owned forest land. The purpose of this managed forest tax reduction programme is to encourage proper management of such land and to ensure its fullest productivity. Qualifying forest owners will receive grants equal to 50 per cent of the 1973, 1974 and 1975 municipal and school taxes levied on their forest property. Notice of this programme has been widely advertised in the province and applications are being processed at the present time.

I would like now, Mr. Chairman, to turn to our mining programme. As I said in my opening remarks, I will deal with aspects of mine safety.

As part of the Division of Mines programme, my ministry holds the responsibility for the regulation and inspection of mining operations and processes in the province.

As an outgrowth of the discussions during last year’s estimates, the government of Ontario on Sept. 10, 1974, set up the royal commission on the health and safety of miners.

Mr. Chairman, I feel it can be reasonably said that we did not fully recognize or assess a number of important changes in the field of health and safety of mine workers over the past few years. One of the changes has been labour’s growing awareness of health and safety measures.

Mr. Martel: They have known all along. You have just not allowed them in.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are in now.

Mr. Martel: Don’t give me that nonsense. Don’t try to paint labour into a corner.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Wait a minute. I’ll repeat what I said.

Mr. Martel: I listened to what you said. None of the changes have been labour’s.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s a fact, and you know it’s a fact, it’s only in the last few years that labour’s become keenly aware and interested.

Mr. Martel: They wanted in a long time ago. It was you through the mining act who wouldn’t allow them in.

Mr. Chairman: Would the member for Sudbury East come to order? He’ll have an opportunity to speak later on.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’ll repeat that, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the member. One of the changes has been labour’s growing awareness for health and safety measures.

Mr. Martel: It’s a bare-faced lie.

Mr. Chairman: The member will have to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Martel: No, Mr. Chairman, you will have to --

Mr. Chairman: That isn’t permitted in this chamber. No member can accuse another member of telling a bare-faced lie.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest of respect, the statement is a deliberate deception. If I am allowed to explain the position I will.

Mr. Chairman: It is not debatable; you will have to withdraw that.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, the minister states one of the changes has been linked to growing awareness --

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry; will the member come to order? It is not debatable; you cannot accuse another member of lying in this chamber.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the statement but I will explain my position later on this afternoon.

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

Another has been the result of the advance of medical knowledge and awareness coupled with vastly improved techniques for measuring health and safety levels. I am sure the member will agree with me on that.

Health and safety are not negotiable issues. Therefore, in my ministry’s brief to the royal commission, which received wide acclaim right across this province in the mining communities of this province --

Mr. Laughren: Stop it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- we recommended that approaches be examined so that miners and managers would work together, with our engineers assisting them, to ensure a greater common responsiveness to health and safety problems. I am happy to report excellent progress in this particular area.

Another change that should be mentioned is that the miners themselves and their families across Ontario have become much more concerned than in the past about health and safety problems in their working environment. We have earnestly tried to do a good job of protecting our mine workers.

Mr. Laughren: Stop it. This is getting sick.

Mr. Martel: That is why I made the remark.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: But far too often the miners are not consulted and we have now changed that situation. Any non-privileged information that the government has is now made available to miners and will be published and actively disseminated.

Mr. Laughren: What is privileged?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: My engineers will require that any information in the hands of mining companies will be promptly communicated and explained to the individual miners involved.

Mr. Martel: What about information in your ministry?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is available to the public and I have made this very clear.

Mr. Laughren: You decide what is privileged, though.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Any information we have in regard to the health and safety of miners is available to them; that’s a point of fact.

All of these points were fully documented in the extensive brief presented by the Ministry of Natural Resources on June 4, 1975, to the royal commission. On that occasion, I believe we dealt frankly with our programmes -- our record, our failures; and we admit we have failures --

Mr. Ferrier: A lot of them.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- and our successes. From 1957 through to 1973, the total accident frequency rate per million man-hours worked in Ontario mining was 38.4. In trucking and carting, it was 57.6; in construction, it was 59.4; in foundries, 79.2; and logging, 93.4.

Mr. Laughren: Does that include industrial diseases? No, it doesn’t.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Of course, there are always factors which introduce insidious long-term effects on health in the mining industry. We have taken steps to improve our --

Mr. Laughren: But not action, have you?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- capability to recognize and respond to these hazards quickly. We are seeking out new and more effective equipment and methods to control such hazards.

One of the steps we have taken is to upgrade and to strengthen the mines engineering branch. This is the branch in my ministry which carries out the inspection of working conditions and gets all sides to observe safety and health standards.

Realizing the vital importance of this role, the Management Board approved nine more positions in this branch. The first move, in a staff reorganization, was to appoint three chief engineers and to base them in Sudbury. These are the provincial experts in mining, electrical and mechanical equipment and ventilation respectively. Instead of working from our main office in Toronto, they are operating in the heart of our mining country. These chief engineers develop procedures for enforcement of standards and guidelines. They also audit the field engineers’ performance in ensuring that the standards and guidelines are met.

To further firm up the mines engineering branch, recruiting is going on to fill some of the key positions. We are going after the best qualified people available so that our impact will be more effective at all levels of the industry.

[3:45]

In still another change, the branch is putting greater emphasis on engineering the hazards out of the industrial processes before they are actually used in mining operations. That is, before a new operation goes into production, the plans are brought to the ministry and are very carefully examined before any cement is poured or any construction starts. So we have firsthand knowledge of what they are trying to do and we can give them the best advice possible.

However, I would like to emphasize the point that substantial improvement will only be possible through greater co-operation among all those involved in the mining industry. I state categorically that a greater co-ordinated effort by both management and labour is vital if the record of safety and health in Ontario mines is to improve. It has to be a two-way street.

Mr. Laughren: Labour has tried.

Mr. Ferrier: Labour has tried.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It has to be a two-way street.

Mr. Laughren: It is not labour’s fault that it has not been a two-way street.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, the mining industry has done a job too, and don’t discount that.

Mr. Martel: On the miners.

Mr. Laughren: They sure have.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes they have. Just don’t wipe it off. They have been around a long time and you just can’t wipe out the thousands and the thousands of dollars and man-hours that the industry itself have put into it.

Mr. Warner: And the deaths.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Just the Mine Accident Prevention Association alone, you know; the effort they put in there long before labour was involved, as concerned as they are today. I appreciate labour’s involvement --

Mr. Ferrier: It was done only because they have been forced to.

Mr. Laughren: Despite the Mining Act.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think labour’s involvement is great and it’s got to be that way. And we will encourage it and we will assist them to be part of it.

Among the reforms we recommended to the royal commission were, first, a new mining code for Ontario to promote greater worker response and involvement related to health and safety in mines. And, secondly, the establishment of a special committee to prepare amendments to the Mining Act.

We have set up this committee. Its membership was announced on Sept. 15 and includes persons from the ranks of labour and management. We want miners themselves to have a say in whatever changes come about in the Mining Act. I think that particular committee has sat now on three or four occasions, They are moving ahead. They have had some confrontations, which is expected when you get both sides at the table --

Mr. Ferrier: Is Wadge a member of that committee?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- but I am hopeful that under the chairmanship of C. M. Barrett, who is very knowledgeable, that we will be able to come to this Legislature with an Act that is properly prepared, that is properly gone over by both sides -- by government, by the industry and by labour. I can remember a few years ago when I came to this Legislature when they were revising the Mining Act.

Mr. Martel: I remember well. I remember well and you beggars wouldn’t move.

Mr. Ferrier: As soon as a proposal was made the minister looked down at Wadge to see if he would give his permission.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The agonizing hours that were spent and the debates that lasted for long hours into the evening.

Mr. Martel: Right.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: But we are going to do away with that kind of confrontation. We are at the table and we are doing it in an entirely different method.

Mr. Martel: You could have done it then, but this government wouldn’t.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, that was the minister of the day, and he is not with us any more. But the new, enlightened ministers you have here now are taking this new approach.

Interjections.

Mr. Bernier: Is it time for commercials?

Mr. Laughren: The Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) calls it the new accord.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: New accord.

Mr. Laughren: Would you call it that as well?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes.

Mr. Laughren: Would you?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh yes, we do.

Mr. Gaunt: You have got a lot of stuff there. Is it a filibuster?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Further, and this is important, Mr. Chairman, we intend this committee that we have established now, or some other similar body, to become a permanent participant in our administration of mine health and safety in this particular province. We want an ongoing committee established that will give us the benefit of their advice.

Mr. Martel: You might adopt my bill.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh well, certainly. If we get some good advice, we will always accept it. We are not that proud. We have a job to do. We want to be responsible, and we think we are being responsible.

I say again that our emphasis cannot be on negative regulation by external agencies. We have been committed to self-regulation by those in the industry.

Mr. Laughren: That is an irresponsible statement. What do you mean by negative?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, there has been a negative approach by some groups on many occasions.

Mr. Laughren: What groups? What outside groups?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Maybe industry and maybe labour -- I’m not singling out one; but both aides.

Mr. Laughren: You call that an outside agent?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This is the only effective way to improve the record.

I would like to turn to other activities in the field of mining. During the past summer, the geological branch staff did 33 geological surveys, one geophysical survey and two geochemical surveys. In addition, aggregate resource studies were done in 24 townships and mineral deposit studies were undertaken throughout the province. In all, 10,000 square miles were covered by geoscience surveys led by 31 permanent staff, assisted during the field season by 114 casual staff.

Earlier this year, eastern Ontario was added to the designated areas included under the mineral exploration assistance programme -- better known as the MEAP programme. This programme to support the search for productive mineral deposits and to boost the provincial economy has already had results in the earlier designated areas. Our reports indicate that 51 per cent of the wages paid to date under the MEAP agreements in other parts of the province went to local residents, and 64 per cent of the supplies for programmes under the agreement were purchased locally.

To date, 241 technical reports have been submitted for completed exploration work. At two properties, ore located under MEAP was mined, and at three others, mineralization of near economic size and grade was found.

Another programme for mineral discovery is our participation with the federal government in an aerial reconnaissance survey of the province for potential uranium resource areas, and 1975-1976 will be the first of a five-year joint programme.

An inventory of Ontario’s zinc industry is currently being carried out by the division of mines in a joint federal-provincial project. Although the zinc mining industry in the province produces about 10 per cent of the free world zinc -- about as much as that produced by the United States -- only 22 per cent of that zinc is refined to the metal stage in Ontario. Before it can be decided what can be done by government to encourage further zinc processing in the province, a thorough understanding of the industry, including its resource base, must be reached. In a similar case, a uranium survey of Ontario was carried out at the end of 1974 and is now being updated.

My ministry has recently provided a $300,000 grant to the Royal Ontario Museum to establish a geochronological laboratory. This will be the most sophisticated age-dating equipment for rocks available, and it’s the first facility of its kind in our country. I can tell you, gentlemen, any of you who are involved in the mining industry or may have heard of this particular announcement, we’re most pleased, because it’s something that no other jurisdiction has in Canada and it’s being very well received to assist us in our exploration programme.

As my colleagues are aware, Mr. Chairman, last spring we announced the adoption of the amethyst as Ontario’s official mineral emblem. I am particularly pleased that the Chairman, of course, supported us wholeheartedly in that endeavour.

Mr. Laughren: It was his idea. What do you mean, supported it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We question that.

Mr. Laughren: I know you question that, but it was his idea. Give him credit for it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Everybody gets in the act when it’s a good thing.

Mr. Laughren: After he did.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Another area I’d like to turn to now is forest fire control. During 1974, the province experienced the most severe forest fire season in 50 years. Extended drought conditions in late June and July in northwestern Ontario resulted in 1,622 fires burning 1.3 million acres. Although the fire control system was severely tested by these outbreaks, it functioned well. We were able to learn from this experience and had moved to further improve our fire control system when this past season arrived.

The 1975 forest fire season in Ontario can best be described as both abnormal and unique. A total of 3,138 fires occurred, the all-time record for the greatest number of fire starts in any one year. To provide some comparisons, the total was nearly 1,500 fires more than the previous summer, and the average per year for the previous decade had only been about 1,409 fires.

Now, gentlemen, here is the good news: Despite the abnormally high number of fires, the total area burned last summer was held at the relatively low level of 40,000 acres. Compare that to the year before, to 1.3 million acres, and you can see the tremendous job the staff of the ministry did. This is an average of less than 13 acres per fire -- a most commendable achievement indeed. I take my hat off to all those, both on the regular staff and of course our thousands of casual staff, principally the native people of this province whom we are so pleased to have on our fire-fighting work force.

Mr. Laughren: If you could take mining out of your ministry it would be a good ministry.

Mr. Martel: These are good people. That is a good department.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: To make other interesting comparisons, the 1975 total of 40,000 acres compares with the previous 10-year average of 159,000 acres. Compared to the burn during the 1974 season, this year’s total was 30 times less. So we had a great year when it comes to forest fires -- not by number, but by acreage.

The major reasons for this favourable situation are worth reporting. First, the weather helped a great deal. Days on which conditions favoured fires were interspersed with days having high relative humidities and low winds. Second, the intense experience of 1974 brought internal reviews and recommendations for improvements in the fire suppression system. Our people were ready. Third, we made more effective use of aircraft this year by combining the traditional float-equipped ministry aircraft, our tracker fire attack fleet and the helitack system employing leased helicopters.

And finally, although there were other contributing factors I haven’t the time to mention, one major reason was the high level of training and skills our field fire staff brought to the task, I am extremely proud to say that the ministry staff showed their ability to perform efficiently under stress, and much of the credit for limiting the acreage burned is due to their ability, their experience and their effort.

Mr. Martel: Hope you remember that when they ask for a pay raise.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We view forest fire control as a priority matter. My ministry’s recent commitment in the northern areas to allow the forest industry to expand -- and that’s, sir, north of Armstrong and north of Red Lake -- meant that we had to intensify our fire-control measures on an additional 20,000 square miles.

Mr. Ferrier: Did you get any flak from Darcy in that?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, we did, I will have to admit.

Twelve additional specialists and $1.8 million were made available to provide for this increased protection -- this is because of the tremendous development occurring in the Kimberly-Clark operations, and the plans of the Reed Paper company to develop a new mill in the Ear Falls-Red Lake area -- we felt we had to move in and protect those resources. Up till now we were not concentrating any large effort on it, but we now have special helicopters and aircraft based at Pickle Lake and Red Lake.

Turning to other field service programmes, 35 water control and engineering projects are scheduled this year at a total cost of $1.3 million; 20 are recreational projects; eight are for flood and erosion control; and seven provide ministry facilities such as docks and dams and so on. These projects are scattered across the province with three each located in the southwestern and north central regions, four each in the northwestern, northern, northeastern and eastern regions, six in the Algonquin region, and seven in the central region.

In the area of resource access, slightly more than $3 million will be spent in maintaining 5,000 miles of forest access roads, logging access roads, agreement roads and other roads in the province this year. And, an additional 210 miles of forest and logging access roads will be constructed this year to help the harvesting and managing of our forests on Crown lands.

Approximately $5 million will be spent by the Northern Ontario Resources Transportation Committee this year to build new roads and upgrade others for use as transportation routes for the exploration and extraction of the province’s resources. Of this amount, almost $4 million will be spent on projects wholly financed by the committee, while $1.3 million will be used to assist the mining and the forest industries in building roads on a cost-sharing basis.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) is not here because I just want to comment briefly on conservation authorities. I believe he will have some comment to make when we get into that particular vote.

In the conservation authorities programme the emphasis has been on water management. Potential hazards such as the May, 1974, flood of the Grand River have always been recognised. I am pleased to assure the members that the recommendations of the royal commission report on the Grand River flood are being acted upon. For example, additional funds were approved for both flood-plain land acquisition in Cambridge-Galt and for the Guelph dam in the current year.

The provincial flood-plain mapping programme to pinpoint vulnerable areas is being accelerated with grants in excess of $1 million earmarked for that purpose. Approximately $2 million annually is spent for the acquisition of flood-plain lands to ensure that they are retained as open space where floods would cause minimal damage.

Because of a reduction in the federal government’s support of the water survey programme, new funding is being allocated to ensure the continued collection of information by stream-gauging stations. About one-third of our grants help in the capital construction of conservation area facilities. Local municipalities cover operating costs.

[4:00]

About 30 years ago this government brought in a farsighted and far-reaching piece of legislation called the Conservation Authorities Act. Through the combined efforts of local people, municipalities and the province, an outstanding programme of watershed management and conservation has been developed.

Conservation authorities, made up primarily of municipally appointed local people, provide Ontario with a much safer and more enjoyable environment. This government is fully committed to this work, and I am pleased to point out that since the conservation authorities programme became associated with my ministry in 1972, we have seen a significant increase in funding.

In 1971 the budget for the conservation authorities was $12.8 million. This year the budget is $32.3 million, or 2 1/2 times the level of 1971.

Mr. Ferrier: Darcy will be coming down hard on that one.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Great budget; very encouraging estimates.

I know that my cabinet colleagues, as well as many other members, share my enthusiasm for this very important programme. The conservation authorities have a foremost part to play, in conjunction with the Ministry of Natural Resources, in water management in this province. We intend to see this excellent contribution to our quality of life vigorously continued and strengthened.

The cottage lot programme: I would like to turn now to a new initiative in the provision of summer cottage lots on public lands. Perhaps no other programme operated by my ministry so exemplifies the life styles of Ontarians.

“The cottage,” or as they say in the great riding of Kenora, “the camp,” is a tradition which has benefited the people of Ontario for generations. This form of recreation, at its best, combines physical well-being with a respect for nature.

In the past few years, a number of factors have been combined to bring home the need for a fresh, hard look at our cottage lot programme. These are such factors as our growing population, the increased prosperity and the leisure time of a broader segment of our people, demands on our lake resources by people from less fortunate provinces and states neighbouring Ontario, changes in the public perception of the cottaging experience, and the growing knowledge among scientists of the complex nature of lakes and their limits in sustaining heavy and varied use.

In response, my ministry has initiated a number of changes in the cottage lot programme. Lots will be leased for an initial period of 30 years, with the right of renewal by the lessee for two further periods of 10 years each. In the case of new lots, only residents of Ontario will be eligible to apply in the first year. Other Canadians become eligible in the second year, and if any one of those lots is not taken up, then residents of other countries may apply in the third year.

Mr. Martel: Why don’t you follow the select committee report?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This is an excellent one.

Mr. Martel: No. The select committee recommended no sale plan or lease other than to landed immigrants or Canadians.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We’ve had very few non-Canadians able to pick up summer cottage lots, because --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Non-Canadians? No. This is Crown land I’m speaking of.

Those following other recreational pursuits such as fishing, canoeing, camping, and so on also deserve a fair share of enjoyment on our lakes, so we have provided a lake planning method which will consider these other requirements, and also allow for a total package of uses within the capacity of a lake to sustain them.

We hope to provide some 400 lots this year and up to 800 lots in each of the next two years. During this three-year period, a thorough evaluation of the programme will be made. Of course it will be realized that most of the lots mentioned will be provided in northern Ontario. In the south -- of course, we all realize this -- with much less Crown land, only a limited number of lots may be made available. The requirements for the remaining public lakeshore for other ministry programmes will restrict the number of lots that we can afford to offer to the public.

In 1972, the ministry initiated a programme to rehabilitate pits and quarries on Crown lands. The programme has steadily progressed resulting in a number of completed projects this year. As I’m sure the members are aware, when we take aggregate from Crown lands we get a royalty. I think it’s 17 cents a yard. That is taken into consideration so that we have this particular budget to rehabilitate those exhausted pits on Crown lands. In 1972, 28 pits were rehabilitated, in 1973 41 were dealt with and last year, 51 pits were rehabilitated.

Mr. Ferrier: How many in the north?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are practically all in the north.

Mr. Moffatt: All or practically all?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would say 95 per cent or maybe 98 per cent of them. That’s north of the French River.

At no increase in funding, a total of 70 pits are scheduled for makeovers this particular year. In the programme to date we have concentrated on pits located on Crown land along the travelled highways of the province. Gradually these eyesores of the past are being eliminated.

In 1974, my ministry embarked on a test project in the northwest region to control the indiscriminate use and abuse of highway rights of way, gravel pits, public boat launching areas and backroads by overnight campers. This was done by restricting camping within a half mile of travelled roads, providing basic facilities at designated camp sites and educating the public through highway signs and advertising in the press and radio.

Because of demands made by the severe fire situation in northern Ontario in 1974, the Crown land camping project was only partially implemented. In the past summer, however, the project was continued with improved information to the public.

Mr. Nixon: A lot of tourists service their holding tanks in those projects or whatever you call it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, we are well aware of that. Right now, we are assessing the results of this approach to solving a serious environmental problem. Last year we followed with public meetings throughout the entire test area. The test area consists of that area from Ignace to the Manitoba border and from west of Atikokan to Fort Frances, where we have literally hundreds of designated areas. The signing designates the sites of provincial parks, private camp grounds and designated areas established by the Crown. We have just completed a complete round of public hearings on this particular, again to get the reaction of the local residents.

Mr. Nixon: Do they like it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would have to say to you that there is some concern about the number of non-residents using these particular areas at no cost. In fact many have said to me they leave their home on a Friday night and, by the time they get to a designated site some way off in the wilderness areas or northwestern Ontario, they find it loaded with people from Manitoba or the United States. Here again they are using Crown lands at no cost. What is coming out of the meetings is a desire to have licence fee charged to those out-of-province campers, with no charge to residents themselves.

Mr. Nixon: These designated areas would then have to be patrolled and serviced.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are now. On the provincial parks programme: the major effort of our park planning activity over the past years was a development of comprehensive recreation policy proposals. These policies will be open to public review during the regional public participation meetings being conducted as part of the ministry’s strategic land-use planning programme. The master planning programme which a few years ago consisted of only four or five parks now covers almost 40 provincial parks whose master plans are in various stages of completion. One of these plans is for our largest park, Polar Bear Primitive Park.

Last year a provincial parks council, consisting of 20 members who represent a broad geographic and interest spectrum, was appointed. The council advises the government through the Ministry of Natural Resources on matters of policy planning and development of Ontario’s provincial parks in relation to the changing needs of the public. The council will be focusing its attention on three particular areas this year: Hunting and fishing in provincial parks; near-urban parks; and the parks classification system. Public meetings have been held where people from all walks of life presented their views about provincial parks and Crown land recreation.

Also the council will be looking closely at the Algonquin Park master plan and its implementation. The work of the council during the coming years will focus largely on revisions to the 1967 parks classification system. The council will also evaluate the historic, wilderness and recreational qualities of our rivers systems and in southern Ontario it will review potential nature reserves.

Another advisory group, the Ontario Trails Council, was set up this past September. It will make recommendations for the future planning and development of the province’s recreational trails programme. The 17 members of the council represent various recreational organizations, farmers and conservation concerns which come from various parts of this province.

The trails council held its first formal meeting in Toronto early this month. Among the things the group will review is the snowmobile trails programme implemented last year for the first time, with nearly 6,500 miles of trails being groomed and managed by private clubs and the Ministry of Natural Resources. Because the new season is now upon us, that programme is to continue this winter on an interim basis but the trails council’s recommendations are expected to have an impact on plans for the 1976-1977 season.

Now to CORTS, the Canada-Ontario Rideau-Trent-Severn agreement. This agreement, as I’m sure many members are aware, calls for the co-ordinated planning and development of a 425-mile-long land and water recreational corridor between Ottawa and Georgian Bay. It was signed on Feb. 20, 1975, by the federal and Ontario governments.

Under the agreement an advisory committee -- and I think we’re dining with them this evening -- and an agreement board have been established. The advisory committee is to advise the ministers on work programmes proposed for the corridor, public opinion, and how best to attain the objectives set out in the agreement. The advisory board will recommend to the ministers a plan for the acquisition, development and control of lands and facilities within the corridor.

Commercial fish and fur: Ontario stands first among all provinces and territories in the production of wild fur and in total value of its fur crop to trappers. Ontario’s 12,000 trappers share $8 million annually from this resource, which could be increased by approximately 100 per cent and still be perpetuated year after year. A major portion of this fur is exported, increasing the national value of this product tremendously.

In addition to managing the fur-bearing animals, my staff is striving to increase the number working in the fur industry. At the same time, the staff is actively participating in provincial, national and international efforts to find and institute more humane trapping methods. We are also conducting an extensive education programme for trappers to help them become better informed on technological developments, to upgrade the value of their furs and to carry on trapping in the most humane way.

Commercial fishing provided full or part-time employment for about 2,200 people in Ontario last year. An equal number were engaged in commercial baitfish harvesting. The landed value of food fish was about $9.5 million.

To strengthen this important industry my ministry, in co-operation with the federal Department of the Environment, conducts a variety of projects. In the past year and with the assistance of Ontario Hydro, a prototype eel-ladder was installed at the Robert Saunders dam at Cornwall to facilitate the passage of eels over this impediment to their upstream migration. These edible fish, of course, are not to be confused with the predacious sea lamprey.

The programme of freight equalization assistance to fishermen in northwestern Ontario continued to produce benefits, and $75,000 was paid to fishermen in respect to shipments of about 1.06 million lb of fish.

Sport fisheries: The recognition of sport fisheries as a vital but fragile component of our province’s natural resources continues to grow. The emergence of a new public awareness and concern has helped us to launch a number of new projects important to the management of fish stocks and to the rebuilding of others.

I advised the Legislature last year of our expansion of fish hatchery facilities at Dorion, near Thunder Bay, and at Bath, near Kingston. We are increasing our capability for management and for rebuilding stocks of fish in the Great Lakes.

As you know, we have worked closely with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission since it was established by international convention in the late 1950s. Sea lamprey control, a major task of that commission, has now been generally achieved throughout the Great Lakes. We now must work closely, through the commission, with other fisheries agencies on the US side and with the federal government in rebuilding the stocks decimated by the sea lamprey.

[4:15]

At the same time, more and more people are recognizing that healthy fish communities are the best indicators of good water quality. Our fisheries staff work closely with their counterparts in the Ministry of the Environment, and with the Great Lakes part of the International Joint Commission in their water quality management programmes.

Sea lamprey control, effective water quality management and carefully regulated harvest, collectively can return to the people of Ontario several million pounds of fish and several million recreational days. Our new initiative in fisheries management is designed to make this happen.

For the past few months and during the current year, our staff have been working jointly with our federal colleagues in the fisheries and marine service to develop a single strategic plan for fisheries in Ontario. We look forward to the possibility of federal support and participation in our Ontario fisheries programme.

In more specific terms, we plan to:

1. Increase our management capability on Lake Superior, Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair and Lake Ontario, and also on Lake Simcoe, Lake Nipissing and Lake of the Woods, in addition to the Kawarthas and Algonquin region lakes.

2. Begin a fisheries extension programme.

3. Improve our capacity to monitor contaminants in fish.

4. Improve our flow of information and data as a basis for greater public participation in our decision making.

Members will recall that over the years there have been many requests from members, individuals and organizations for more conservation officers. I am pleased to report that the ministry was given permission to hire 25 additional conservation officers to be located in the districts where the greatest needs or shortages exist. These new conservation officers, along with those presently on staff, are primarily involved in fish and wildlife enforcement activities. However, conservation officers were also in the provincial parks during the past season to deal --

Mr. Ferrier: You are being criticized.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, we have a problem there. We admit it is a serious one.

Mr. Ferrier: You should be doing fish and wildlife work first, rather than in the parks.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They can do both jobs.

Mr. Ferrier: Oh, yes.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The parks are only open for a short period of time and they have the enforcement training that we need at that particular time.

As I point out here, conservation officers were also in our provincial parks during the past season to deal with the serious problems of rowdyism and vandalism my ministry has encountered at some of our parks. The officers have also spent some time, as required, in enforcement aspects related to land management and forestry.

Hunting and fishing seasons and limits are set on game species to allow optimum harvest, while keeping populations at levels recommended by scientific management. Much concern has been expressed about moose populations in recent years.

Mr. Nixon: Moose?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Moose, big moose.

Mr. Nixon: I thought it was goose.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: After an extensive review of moose management problems over a year and a half, including nine public meetings across northern Ontario, a number of significant measures are being implemented.

In 1975, moose seasons opened later and will close earlier in many areas. The moose seasons that have been introduced are based on a new system of wildlife management units which will provide us with the flexibility to implement management programmes that better recognize local problems.

Also, the cost of the non-resident moose licence was increased from $125 to $175. Of course, added to that, if hunters were successful, was a $15 trophy fee -- making the total cost to a non-resident $190.

There are a number of miscellaneous programmes, Mr. Chairman.

The Junior Ranger programme provides 17-year-olds with an outdoor experience and appreciation of our natural resources. Both boys and girls are employed in activities which include environmental clean-up, timber thinning, cutting out portages, provincial park maintenance, campsite development and improvement, and the use of firefighting equipment.

In 1974, four Junior Ranger camps were reconstructed and this year the number of camps for girls was increased from seven to 18. I must say that we had a tremendous response from the young ladies of this province to join that particular programme.

This year, too, the daily pay for the Junior Rangers was increased to $10 from last year’s $5, to attract a full complement.

Mr. Ferrier: That was a good move.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes it was; and strongly supported by all members of this House.

We were short of male applicants last year, but this year there were plenty. And this year’s total of 1,618 Junior Rangers included 456 girls.

On March 3 of this year, Elizabeth Rhodes was appointed women’s co-ordinator in our ministry. In the same month a policy directive was issued by the deputy minister conveying to all staff the commitment of the Ministry of Natural Resources to the Equal Opportunities Programme for Women in Ontario. Since then an advisory committee has been set up and under its guidance, Mrs. Rhodes has begun her work. Assisted by project officers, she visited 18 Junior Ranger camps where girls were located. This fall, she held 10 career development workshops for ministry staff in Elliot Lake, Dorset, Thunder Bay and Toronto, and four more are scheduled during the winter.

Mrs. Rhodes will also be visiting universities and community colleges in future months to recruit appropriate job candidates for the ministry. She will encourage a new consciousness within our ministry about equal opportunities for women employees.

We have about 700 women in our total work force in the ministry which is about 4,000 total -- 700 women.

Mr. Mancini: How is their credit rating?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Excellent. They are all the best -- the finest of girls.

The northern affairs branch continued to be an important support service for government agencies doing business in northern Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: That used to be a separate department. Remember those good old days?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That was under the former administration.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, yes. You resurrect that before each election, the northern affairs department.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: During 1974-1975, northern affairs officers handled 164,851 transactions and distributed 159,000 copies of publications for various government agencies, provided a backup communications system during the Dryden fires and completed such special assignments as a survey of power sources in 1,000 small communities for the Ministry of Energy.

This year, the northern affairs branch is stepping up its programme of services delivery for 50 satellite office locations manned on a volunteer basis and for Indian reserves. In this connection, an experiment conducted this year in delivering government services to native people in the remote north is worth mentioning. During June 10, 11 and 12, the northern affairs branch, through its Timmins office, co-ordinated a northern task force of 18 provincial and federal government representatives. The group visited Winisk on Hudson Bay, Attawapiskat, Fort Albany and Kashechewan on James Bay.

The visits were in response to a request from Grand Council Treaty No. 9 and the native chiefs of the bands visited have expressed their pleasure for this service. Northern affairs is reviewing the results in the light of possible future trips to remote settlements in the province.

Finally I would like to report on the ministry reorganization plan which I outlined to the members last year. The reorganization has been implemented except for some planned changes in the mines engineering branch, the conservation authorities branch and the information branch.

Our new district and regional system is proving most effective in responding to local needs and in co-ordinating our many field activities and services. We are currently reviewing how even more of our activities can be decentralized from Queen’s Park to the district level so that still better services can be provided to the people of the Province of Ontario, particularly in the north.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Not the regional level.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This concludes my opening statement. Although, as I said in my opening few words, it is longer than usual, I hope it will provide --

Mr. Nixon: Did Paul write it for you?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- the new members at least with a brief review of the varied programmes that we have in the Ministry of Natural Resources. The details, of course, can be gone into as we go through each particular vote. I think you will have to agree that it’s a very extensive programme. It is one that affects the daily lives of each and every one of us in this province.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister having completed his brief statement, we will now recognize then hon. member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Ferrier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This will be the fourth occasion that it has been my honour and privilege to lead off on the Ministry of Natural Resources estimates for the New Democratic Party and this will he my swan song in this capacity as my colleague from Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) will be assuming these responsibilities from here on.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, that’s a step backward.

Mr. Martel: Thanks, Bob. I agree with it though.

Mr. Ferrier: I note that the minister made quite a long statement about the forest industry in northern Ontario during the first part of this speech. Having worked with some of his ministry officials in my region, I was aware of the increased activity as far as silviculture was concerned and the move to increase that operation and the hope to increase the woods and woods product industry.

In my part of the province almost all of the wood is allotted and being utilized. A few years ago the hon. member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle), when he was Minister of Lands and Forests, described poplar as a weed species. Now of course, with new technology, we have wafer board and poplar plywood in great demand; all the poplar that is possibly available is being coveted and is being used.

I think we are happy there has been this commitment to the silvicultural programme in this province by the minister and his staff. We’ve called on it from this side of the House for a long time and have supported every possible move in this direction your ministry has moved in. I hope that to some extent it’s been useful in your negotiations with the Management Board.

Having said that, I express a great concern from this party and from the people of northern Ontario about the situation which now persists in northern Ontario as far as the forest industry is concerned. We have experienced for well over four months now the shutdown of a number of our pulp and paper mills and, in conjunction with that, some of our sawmills have been shut down because the chips cannot be utilized in the pulp and paper mills. We have a number of bush workers who are out of work and the whole industry, to a large extent, is at a standstill.

What really concerns me is that this government has not moved in long before this and exerted pressure on the industry which, I feel, is responsible for this strike dragging on so long by its failure to bargain in any meaningful or sensible way. The ministry and the government have not moved in and have allowed this situation to go on for an inordinate length of time.

I feel that if the government had exerted pressure on the companies to get to the bargaining table and to negotiate in a meaningful sense this impasse could have been settled some time ago.

The last time the Abitibi workers came to Toronto they reduced their claim from $2 to $1.25. The company walked out to consider this arrangement but didn’t even make a counter offer; it sent a messenger saying “We’re not interested in negotiating.”

What the company put forward was, I think, an eight per cent increase -- six per cent in wages and two per cent in production based on the 1974 production schedule. But 1974 was the year when the pulp and paper industry, particularly Abitibi, went to a seven-days-a-week operation; their production was at an all-time high and there is no way they can ever reach that kind of production level again. What they were offering, in fact, was six per cent.

I think, to his credit, at least the federal Minister of Labour is saying that these companies are not offering a reasonable offer compared to what other industries have proposed and settled with their workers. He is intervening to talk to the presidents of some of these companies.

[4:30]

I think you’d had too much of a cosy relationship with the management of these big companies. You’ve been afraid to step in and lay a heavy hand on them and’ tell them to get to the bargaining table and to negotiate in a meaningful sense. I think this shows that the government’s concern for northern Ontario is less than it ever has been. As I have said, it is not only the workers in the pulp and paper industry who are affected by the attempt by the pulp and paper companies to break the new Canadian union, and not to bargain in a meaningful sense and in a good faith sense but we have also seen sawmills shut down in our areas, woodworkers not out cutting in the woods and transportation workers no longer working.

Then there is the general way that the economy of the northeast has been suffering as a result and I suppose that of parts of the south as well. This has meant a loss to our provincial economy; it has meant a loss in taxation revenue to this government, it has meant unemployment insurance to those who are not directly affected and it has meant hardship, particularly to some of the families of the strikers, and the government has shown no concern at all about helping in hardship cases. It’s affecting our balance of payments as far as the provincial economy is concerned and perhaps it may have some effect on the value of the Canadian dollar.

I think we have to take a good look at the forest products industry and more particularly, as a result, the pulp and paper industry since they are utilizing our resource for their operations. How is it, when world production of pulp and paper in 1974 was 22,555,620 tons of newsprint in the free world and when world demand in those same countries was 22,953,820 tons, that such huge inventories have been accumulated by the pulp and paper companies and their customers so that there is no impending shortage or hardship experienced by the users? 1 believe the government should move in with a royal commission or some form of inquiry, a minister’s advisory committee, to get to the bottom of this situation. We are not producing up to our capacity.

There are some new production facilities coming on stream in the world, but there is not that much that I can see to be of real significance. According to Newsprint Data, 1974; Statistics of World Demand and Supply, put out by the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, world demand from 1970 to 1974 has exceeded world production. Therefore one asks how the inventories built up to the extent that they have. I suppose there may be other sources of supply from some of the overseas countries.

I see in today’s Globe and Mail that the International Chemical Federation, based in Geneva, which represents the workers in Europe, Sweden and England, has said that in no way will it permit its workers to have the mills over there increase their capacity to ship any newsprint to Canada to prolong this strike and to hurt the workers in this country. They are also talking to the transportation workers in the European countries.

I think that what Henry Lorrain said is true, that Abitibi Paper Co. Ltd. of Toronto has programmed the union into striking because it wants to reduce inventories or maintain price stability. The workers are caught in this corporate sector. He was also critical or reports that the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) is considering a request from the mayors of 11 Ontario municipalities to legislate the paperworkers back to their jobs.

I repudiate wholeheartedly the stand taken by those mayors and reeves who would solve this situation by compulsory arbitration. The workers have fought a valiant battle and their morale is still high even though they have been out so long. I think this obsequious behaviour of the northern mayors coming down here to lay a heavy hand on the working people of their own communities is deplorable. There is no way if that kind of legislation is brought into this House that I or the members of this party will vote against those workers.

Mr. Martel: You might tell industry to sit down and negotiate seeing they are using our natural resources.

Mr. Ferrier: That’s the point and you haven’t done it. I am surprised that this minister hasn’t shown some more leadership within the cabinet to shove the Premier (Mr. Davis) and to give some leadership to the Minister of Labour to do this.

Mr. Laughren: You’re supposed to be the guardian of our resources, you know.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have been involved right along.

Mr. Laughren: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This minister is involved, with the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Cochrane South has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am closer to the situation than you guys are.

Mr. Martel: That is what I am afraid of.

Mr. Ferrier: Why are our workers and our industries in Ontario in jeopardy? Are we involved in this international corporate game, since the companies, according to my understanding, are not making any real effort to bargain? They continue to hold these vast limits and in some parts of the province are begging for larger limits, and they set their own terms for the small operators who sell to them. Should we be reviewing our whole policy of allocating limits, perhaps going so far as to consider cancelling limits and either going to a system of volume agreements or demanding a minimum utilization and production from those limits every year? Or should we consider setting up a crown corporation, similar to the Algonquin Park Forest Authority, to supervise all the cutting in this province? Should we consider a policy of taking some of the functions of ownership from the companies as advocated by the Swedish economist Adler-Karlsson under the concept of functional socialism?

Mr. Nixon: And by the NDP.

Mr. Ferrier: I just happen to think we cannot permit companies to play their games at the public’s expense when they refuse to bargain with their unions in a meaningful way. Especially when they are utilizing our resources and we have been stepping up our silvicultural programmes and our ways to help them and accommodate them in a sense to the degree we have, I don’t think we can let them get away with that kind of irresponsible behaviour.

It is not just one company, it’s the whole bunch of them working together in the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, I think they are called. Because one wouldn’t negotiate, none of them would negotiate. They have just prolonged this strike and they have tried to break the workers and to destroy significantly some of our northern communities and our northern economy.

Little has been said by this government. Would that you would at least have said as much as John Munro has said. We must know the reasons why the strike has gone on for so long, and we must take steps to implement methods to avert such long-term effects to our economy, particularly in the north, as this kind of strike has precipitated. That is why a royal commission or a select committee of this Legislature or a special advisory committee is necessary.

I suggest, with this boom-bust economy which has been inflicted on northern Ontario through the woods product industry and through the mining industry --

Mr. Martel: The robber barons.

Mr. Ferrier: -- we have to take steps and find ways and means of getting around this. Because our communities are being affected. We rush in with a few jobs. We’ll run it for seven full days of operation a week for a year and then we’ll shut down for five months and the companies are entirely happy that they are shot down. The economy is greatly dislocated by this kind of uncontrolled and unplanned way of operating.

And I think, as I said before, that we must set limits of production -- minimum limits -- and we must see that the companies live up to them. It’s perhaps interference in the free market, but in terms of the way our economy has been affected and our north exploited, it’s long overdue that we did move in and set the goals and the objectives and the requirements. The companies that are going to use our resources are going to have to meet those requirements, or we’ll get some other companies to do it.

Mr. Laughren: In a free kind of what?

Mr. Martel: Free market -- free to do what they want.

Mr. Ferrier: Now, last year in May there was a hard-fought, protracted debate on the whole question of mining safety, and on the need for greatly-improved inspection and enforcement of safety and health standards in the mines.

The NDP has been fighting this for years in this Legislature, but only with limited acceptance from the government. The situation came to a head with the very critical situation that developed at Elliot Lake where the incidence of silicosis and lung cancer is disproportionately high. My leader, with the able assistance of the three members from the Sudbury basin and myself, presented the facts so forcefully and effectively before the legislative committee that after my leader’s speech over the supper hour, the minister and his officials agreed to set up a royal commission to deal with the subject of the health and safety practices of the mines of this province.

The minister said earlier this afternoon that the miners and their families were not as concerned with their own health and safety some years ago as they are today. That’s poppycock, because the miners and their families have always been concerned about their safety, and the miners and their families in my area for years have seen how the effects of working in the gold mines in the silica dust have lessened their capacity to live and to work and to produce. They’ve had all kinds of long illnesses. Men have died prematurely from these, they’ve been crippled with back problems --

Mr. Laughren: Where was the minister?

Mr. Ferrier: -- they have not been able to hear because of the high noise levels and no protective means were brought in until sometime in the Sixties. They’ve been concerned. It’s their life that has been either lessened in length or greatly restricted --

Mr. Martel: But we produce.

Mr. Ferrier: -- but production went on.

Mr. Martel: As always.

Mr. Ferrier: As a result, the Ham commission was appointed after the debate, as the minister has said, and has been holding hearings across the province at which a great deal of alarming disclosures kept coming out with a real degree of repetition. Despite their protestations to the contrary, there is no doubt about it --

Interjections.

Mr. Ferrier: -- that this PC government, during its years in office, has failed miserably to protect the miners of this province.

Mr. Martel: You guys hid the facts.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The hon. member for Cochrane South has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The miners got the miners’ bill of rights; you stole it right out of our brief.

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. Ferrier: In fact, the old Ministry of Mines and the present mines branch of this ministry have allowed themselves to be the handmaids of the mining industry and have let them get away with murder. The industry has flourished at the expense of the health and well-being of their workers.

Mr. Martel: They all go to church every Sunday, too.

Mr. Ferrier: Lynn Williams, director, district 6, United Steelworkers of America, before the royal commission, said:

“We wonder what society must do to get the owners of the means of production to recognize that while it may be cheaper to kill workers and replace them than to make jobs safe, it is far more civilized to prevent industrial death than to take it for granted.”

We in this province have been taking it for granted.

[4:45]

In a recent speech to a ventilation conference in Schumacher, the director of the mines engineering branch made some significant comments. According to my recollection of that speech, he said that now the branch means business and will be making a serious effort to adopt and enforce more stringent laws and regulations in the mining field than ever before. He talked about the committee the minister referred to today in his speech. He stated that a new day had dawned in the field of mining health and safety. He pointed to the 1974 estimates debate of this ministry, making particular reference to the period May 16 to 24, 1974. New pressures were applied and a new commitment was forced upon this government to take the health and welfare of workers in the mining industry with same seriousness.

Mr. Martel: The owners sure never worried about it.

Mr. Ferrier: Previously the mining companies only did what they had to do, and successive PC governments put little pressure upon them. Consequently they did what they liked. Chest diseases are common, hearing loss is frequent, disabling injuries are prevalent, personal hardship is inflicted by an uncaring industry whose ability to pressure governments to their own advantage is second to none.

In that speech Mr. McCrodan gave, he more or less said we mean business and if pressure wasn’t exerted on the industry before it will be now. It conveyed to me the impression that the mining industry really didn’t care. It only did what was forced upon them, and the government did little forcing. And I thought that was a shocking thing. We’ve known that all along. But it is a moral outrage that the mining industry have perpetrated this kind of action upon the workers of this province.

In a recent Globe and Mail news story dealing with what went on at the Ontario Federation of Labour convention in Kitchener, these comments are recorded:

“Jean Beaudry, staff representative of the United Steelworkers of Ontario and a member of the Ontario government’s commission now probing mine safety, said the 35 days of public hearings by the commission have demonstrated the callousness on the part of industry with respect to the health and safety of workers.

“Mr. Beaudry said that it is important to give workers the right and authority to do their own monitoring of the work environment rather than leaving that to provincial inspectors.

“The steel union representative charged there has been a massive coverup by the mining industry of accidents and impairment to health as a result of working conditions and working environment.

“He said there had not been one tangible position taken by the Ontario government to protect workers. As a result of this kind of predicament the Ontario Federation of Labour has urged the Ontario government to make it mandatory for companies to establish joint health safety committees and to give workers the right to strike where operations are unsafe.”

Mr. Laughren: You talk about credibility -- it was gone a long time ago.

Mr. Martel: This ministry has no credibility.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Ferrier: This is one of the statements made by one of the advisers to your royal commission. He has listened to the presentation, 35 days of it, and these are the conclusions that he is coming to.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is more than one man on the committee. You should get the other side of the report.

Mr. Martel: We know what they would report. We have had 32 years of it.

Mr. Ferrier: We have had enough of the side of the mining industry to know they can’t be trusted.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I will wait till the commissioner reports.

Mr. Ferrier: We have seen the way that they have treated their workers over the years. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. McCrodan was right when he implied that the debates of May of a year ago were a watershed as far as the health and safety of mine workers are concerned. The royal commission has been set up and presumably will make a number of good and valuable recommendations. As the minister said in his speech, there is a committee within his ministry studying the appropriate sections of the Mining Act, hopefully to strengthen them as far as safer working conditions are concerned.

I remember some of those committee meetings -- in 1971 I think it was -- when, as my colleague from Sudbury East likes to call him, the White Knight was Minister of Mines. We would put forward a lot of the suggestions for amendments --

Mr. Laughren: A tarnished white knight.

Mr. Ferrier: He would look at this man Wadge, who was with International Nickel at that time, and one or two of the other mining industry representatives and they would shake their heads and maybe grunt a few words out, and the amendments were always lost.

I remember one amendment in which we wanted to give the --

Mr. Laughren: Things change.

Mr. Ferrier: -- union the right to inspect a death site before things were changed. They delayed it for about 20 minutes while they went out to get the former member, I think for Nickel Belt -- or he held off the vote -- so that they could defeat that kind of amendment.

Mr. Martel: The minister was there.

Mr. Ferrier: I am convinced that these changes have come about because the leader of the NDP and several others of us have forcefully hammered away on behalf of our constituents to move this government from its callous indifference to reasonable concern. This is one of the battles in which I have been happy to be involved. Only the NDP has led the attack and persisted in it year after year. We shall continue to fight but we can take some real satisfaction that we have forced some changes in the government’s direction. Because of this, the incentive to continue to work for a change is that much greater.

A lot will depend on the degree of enforcement of the Mining Act, once it is revised. As I have said before, the government has been very lax in its enforcement in past years.

The mines engineering branch has a lot for which to answer. Can we really trust this branch to carry out the mandate that is being forced upon it? I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that my comments in times past are still valid; that this responsibility should be transferred to the Ministry of Labour where all other safety procedures are investigated and enforced.

Mr. Laughren: I remember that bill changing.

Mr. Ferrier: Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that all construction of buildings -- refineries smelters, shafts -- on a mining property come under the jurisdiction of the mines engineering branch? What expertise in construction safety does a mining engineer possess? Surely this work should come under those trained in the construction safety branch of the Ministry of Labour.

Again I say change the jurisdiction to the Ministry of Labour; cut down the excessive dependence on mining engineers formerly from middle management of the mining industry and appoint some qualified miners --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: How can you honestly make a statement like that?

Mr. Ferrier: -- which I gather you may now be prepared to do -- even though last year you scoffed at me when I made the proposals to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am shocked at that statement.

Mr. Ferrier: You scoffed at me; you looked down your nose at good qualified miners; you will not appoint them, apparently, to positions of inspection and responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You don’t comprehend the problem. No comprehension at all.

Mr. Ferrier: They are just as concerned -- more so -- with the welfare of the workers. They know, because they have worked in those places a great deal of time, what the dangers are and what steps should be taken, and they can find out when they are not being taken.

It is about time you had a conversion on that score and you appointed some of the miners themselves.

The -- I won’t say that. We should change --

Mr. Martel: Give it to him; lay it on him! Give it to him, don’t worry about it.

Mr. Ruston: Careful now, Bill.

Mr. Shore: Put it on the record, Bill.

Mr. Ferrier: I have got enough here to keep things going.

Mr. Nixon: This is just like those old long sermons; they never end.

Mr. Ferrier: You should change the inspection to the Ministry of Labour, and bring in a number of new people to do the work because the workers do not trust the mines engineering branch’s record in the past.

Certainly, the workers of the Munro mine in Matheson and the Reeves mine of Canadian Johns-Manville have no reason to trust you. For the record’s sake, the mill used at Reeves was the same mill used at Munro. And so much concerned is Johns-Manville for the well-being of miners that they are to or have dismantled the mill to send it to Mexico to process asbestos fibre there.

This infamous mill has seen men working in it in conditions where the fibre count per cubic centimetre has been the highest that workers anywhere in North America have had to work in, according to statistics from your own mines engineering branch which my leader released during the election.

Mr. Martel: And that shows your corporate concern.

Mr. Ferrier: And the concern of the mines engineering branch that you wouldn’t take steps to improve the situation. From what I can ascertain, cases of chest conditions --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Entirely wrong again.

Mr. Ferrier: -- are just beginning to be noticeable in a few men. I hope that the dire prospects do not materialize for those workers, but I have some real fears that they will. I have real concern for the future of the Munro and Reeves workers. I cannot help but wonder at Johns-Manville going to put that mill in operation, or allowing another company to do it, in Mexico to jeopardize the health of Mexicans.

Mr. Laughren: Corporate management.

Mr. Ferrier: It seems as though that company is without a conscience. When they get caught out as grossly negligent in one jurisdiction they sell the mill to another company in another country to carry out callously infamous practices against workers whose government does not provide adequate laws to protect their workers’ health. It is a kind of murder, the kind of lack of morality in that kind of a situation is beyond me.

I say, Mr. Chairman, that the mines inspection branch and the environmental health branch for years allowed workers to continue to work in unsafe conditions in dust levels very much above any reasonable, tolerable level. These civil servants, supported by the government, allowed those workers to jeopardize their health and their future seriously without warning them or forcing the company to clean up.

How can workers trust a branch which has been so indifferent to them? Had it not been for the NDP and our leader these workers might still be working in those conditions.

Johns-Manville are in the process of opening a talc operation on a property adjacent to its now closed asbestos mine in Reeves township. I understand talc miners can develop a lung disease called talcosis from talc dust. Before that mine comes into production, I want some assurance as do the people of this province, that safe working levels for talc will be set and rigidly enforced by this government. We cannot tolerate Johns-Manville’s callous disregard for workers to continue in any way in this province.

Following a meeting with a delegation of Steelworkers from Timmins and the head office of district 6 and myself, the minister requested Johns-Manville to meet with him to explain their reasons for closing the Reeves mine. They refused to meet with the minister but W. L. VanDerbeek, senior vice-president of the company in Denver, Colo. wrote to the minister on June 16, 1975, to explain their reasons for shutting the mine. He didn’t feel he had to come and see the minister -- he’d send him a letter.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You are wrong again.

Mr. Ferrier: You get up and refute it in your response.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, I will. On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The member has a little bit of information.

Mr. Martel: What is your point of order?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: His research is absolutely terrible. He has not followed up and he is standing up in this Legislature saying that’s as far as we went. Well, you are wrong, because we met with the Johns-Manville people. We met with the officials and went over all the details. I’ve been sitting in this Legislature for three or four weeks waiting for you to ask me a question, and you never have. That’s the kind of concern that you have, but now you’ll make a big show of it back home.

Mr. Ferrier: I don’t need to make my show back home. The people back there know my concern for the miners of that area.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We are as responsible as you are. Don’t ever kid yourself. Every bit as responsible.

Mr. Laughren: You and Leo Del Villano?

Mr. Ferrier: You and Leo Del Villano are probably on the same wavelength.

[5:00]

Mr. Martel: Too much concern about all that dust.

Mr. Ferrier: In that letter that he wrote -- when I asked the question in July, you hadn’t seen them, so this guy wrote to you on June 16 and he said that in the milling operation they could not meet the two fibres per cc limit and felt five per cc is reasonable in these operations. He wrote in that letter to you, which was sent to all the members:

“In view of these circumstances we feel there was no technology available to us which would enable us to achieve the standards being considered by the government of Ontario.”

Mr. Laughren: That was a lie.

Mr. Ferrier: “We therefore had no alternative but to close down the Reeves mines.”

Maybe you didn’t read the letter that was sent to you, I don’t know. It is interesting to note the decision was made in Denver in the USA and the vice-president -- Was it the vice-president who came up to see you or did be send some of his Canadian flunkies to see you?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The vice-president.

Mr. Ferrier: Well, we will leave that subject and we will go on to --

Mr. Martel: One calls it blackmail. “We won’t do it or we will move out.”

Mr. Laughren: Good riddance to Johns-Manville.

Mr. Ferrier: Johns-Manville is the most irresponsible company that I have ever heard of.

An hon. member: That ever walked on four legs.

Mr. Ferrier: A year ago the government passed amendments to the mines profit tax. It was an effort to increase the mining taxation and get a better return for the people of the province who own the resources being exploited. Despite the fact that the industry has continued to complain about this increase in taxes and groups in our communities like the Timmins-Porcupine Chamber of Commerce and other Tories in those areas have tried to plead the mining industries’ cause to restore their favoured position, at least this government has given no indication of reversing its position.

I would hope that it would not reverse its position since some pretty favourable tax concessions and write-offs still persist. With all the benefits they still have, the mining industry wants to get an even better ride on the taxpayers’ back than they now have. They want to go back to the good old days. In September, Richard Gwyn of the Toronto Star wrote an article entitled: “Governments Ponder the Future of Mining.” He wrote:

“ … the core of the issue was captured in an exchange during the mines ministers’ conference here last week between Manitoba Mines Minister Sydney Green, and Alfred Powis, president of Noranda Mines -- ”

Mr. Martel: Oh, here is my favourite friend.

Mr. Ferrier: -- to continue:

“ -- and president of the Mining Associations of Canada. Powis called for 'a continuation of the traditional role of the private sector,’ and warned that ‘given the present political climate, we haven’t a hope in hell of realizing the opportunities outlined in this study,’ (the three-fold expansion of the mining industry by the year 2000, forecast by the federal-provincial policy review).

“Replied Green: ‘Business makes its decisions on the basis of the best interests of its shareholders. This I understand. Business in turn must realize that government must make its decisions on the basis of the best interests of its own shareholders.’

“Mining industry shareholders -- at least until some recent taxes -- have done well. The records for the shareholders of governments is less clear. Some examples:

“Increased processing in Canada of the raw products of mines has been a constant refrain for the past two decades. In fact the opposite has happened: The proportions of mineral exports (iron ore excluded) refined or fabricated in Canada has dropped, from 80 per cent in 1950 to less than 50 per cent today.

“The major benefit new mines bring, other than tax revenues, is new jobs. Yet existing mines already are short of labour (the underground turnover commonly exceeds 100 per cent a year) and to close the gap the mining association has proposed hiring foreign workers on contract.

“The mining industry, it goes without saying, has a better case than those two examples indicate: It accounts for six per cent of the gross national product, pumps out some $5 billion worth of exports and brings some reality to the government’s vague goal of decentralizing population -- to sites as remote as the Nanisivik lead-zinc mine on Baffin Island.

“What isn’t known -- and a measure of the immaturity of public policy -- are the true costs of all those benefits. The federal-provincial policy review has yet to produce a single concrete policy decision. It has produced one action that may prove as useful: The first study, to be done at Queen’s University, into both the benefits of mining (taxes, jobs, exports) and its costs (everything from government services to new mining communities to the effects of increased competition for scarce labour and capital). An attempt to learn, in other words, how much the shareholders of governments pay, compared to how much the shareholders of mines earn.”

This party reaffirms the necessity to obtain an adequate return for the taxpayers of this province from the mining industry. To provide services to our northern people and secondary industry we must have money. Adequate mining taxes will provide that money.

I remind the chamber of commerce types with whom the minister gets along so well -- who want government services and facilities in our communities in the north -- that their support of the mining companies for lower taxation is one sure way of not getting adequate services or economic development. Too many so-called free enterprisers want their cake and eat it too.

We must have adequate taxation on our mining industry. We must also see greater public involvement and ownership in the natural resource sector in the future, to provide the resources necessary for proper northern development.

I have raised many times the issue of setting up a Crown corporation similar to the one in Quebec, known as Soquem, to carry out exploration and development work either by themselves or in conjunction with the private mining industry. It is working reasonably well in Quebec and it can work as well here.

The minister announced that he was considering this kind of approach a year or so ago. In fact on Dec. 13, 1974, I asked the minister what had happened to his proposal set forward at the Man and Resources conference in March, 1974. He said that this matter is being thoroughly discussed within his ministry and was to go forward to the Resources Development Policy Field.

What has happened since then to that proposal? Has it gone through the Resources Development Policy Field? And are you going to move to implement such a policy soon? We’ll wait with bated breath for the minister’s response on that. I had hoped that in his statement he would have made some reference to it. Apparently he doesn’t give it very high priority in the future.

I remember in that select committee’s report the companies were expecting this kind of thing -- they were expecting a greater public involvement in the future. Syd Green has moved to do that in Manitoba.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s the biggest joke in Manitoba -- the Manitoba Development Corp.

Mr. Martel: What about your announcement, Leo?

Mr. Ferrier: What have you been doing other than giving handouts and a kind of socialism for the rich? That’s about the only commitment to socialism that that government has -- to pass money out to the rich that already have it, and to keep them rich.

Mr. Laughren: Socialism for the rich, free enterprise for the poor.

Mr. Ferrier: Each year we are interested in the minister’s action in granting exemptions to companies under, I think it’s section 115 of the Mining Act, as far as processing ores in Canada is concerned. I hope that the minister will provide us with this information again this year. If he didn’t bring it here, would he bring it for 8 o’clock tonight if it’s possible? I’m sure that you realized we were going to ask this. Perhaps he will answer the question as to how he has been able to use this section of the Act to provide additional processing of mineral concentrates in Ontario.

In addition, is any serious attempt being made by the minister or his officials to use the refined metals we now have in northern Ontario to try to develop some kind of fabricating industry around these metals? I remember Allan Lawrence, when he was Minister of Mines and had those three northern Ontario conferences that he had. The next step that the government would be devoting its attention to was to move into the fabricating stage to develop a much more viable secondary industry resource based in northern Ontario.

Mr. Martel: It’s a long step.

Mr. Ferrier: I haven’t seen very much action taking place in that. Maybe the minister can set me right on that too.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Where are you from? Where do you live?

Mr. Young: Don’t try too hard.

Mr. Ferrier: We’re having increases in the processing and the refining and we’ll get that fertilizer plant. I hear also that --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It has finally dawned.

Mr. Ferrier: -- that up in Rene Brunelle’s riding you’re going to get some potash out of there, maybe. But what else have you got? Where’s your copper tubing manufacturing complement in the north, or --

Mr. Martel: Nickel-plating.

Mr. Ferrier: -- or nickel-plating or any of these kind of things? What progress have you made in that? I’ll be happy to be set right on that.

Another matter of concern to us in the northeast is the present status of the lignite deposits at Onakawana.

Mr. Haggerty: Hydro says it’s low grade.

Mr. Ferrier: There was the big pledge on behalf of the Premier (Mr. Davis) in his 1971 election campaign in the northeast that they probably were going to go ahead with these lignite deposits. That was his one commitment to us in the northeast in that campaign.

We know that there have been reports tabled in this House and an agreement has been entered into with the Manalta Coal Co. on an exploration agreement. We in the NDP believe that any development of those deposits to produce electricity should be done by the public sector, not the private sector. The minister has stated that studies had suggested that the Onakawan lignite will be more expensive than nuclear-generated electricity but about the same cost as fossil fuel power. I even read your old speeches and debates.

In view of the economic benefits that will accrue to the northeast, to towns like Cochrane and possibly Smooth Rock Falls, as well as being able to provide additional electricity at a competitive cost and to lessen our commitment to the nuclear programme, I believe that we should be coming to some decisions soon as to the development of those lignite deposits.

In conjunction with the development of the territory north of Cochrane, I wish again to bring to the minister’s attention the need to proceed to develop the Pierre Lake area into a provincial park as you have stated you would do some time in the future, again reading your speeches. I have not had the pleasure of viewing the site, although I understand that the minister has personally camped on the beach. Is my research right or is my research wrong?

Mr. Martel: With who, Bill?

Mr. Ferrier: I am informed that is a beautiful site -- I don’t know if I am referring to the minister camping there or not. It’s an outstanding site for a provincial park. They tell me that there’s a beautiful sandy beach there.

Mr. Martel: There was.

Mr. Ferrier: Concern has been expressed to me by the Iroquois Falls council that there is abuse by people of the area through indiscriminate spreading of garbage, overfishing and poaching. They feel that the time has come to develop this site into a provincial park before it is destroyed by people who do not respect the environment and the fishing laws as they should.

[5:15]

I understand from the minister’s statement of last year that one of the major factors in developing the Pierre Lake park is the choice of the route for the road between Moosonee and Highway 11 or something like that.

In this regard, a brief was prepared by the Cochrane Board of Trade and, I believe, presented to the minister. It read something like this:

“The northern entrance: Travelling is easterly from Cochrane for approximately 20 miles over secondary Highways 574 and 652 which is surface-treated and intersects the north-south Abitibi Paper Co. gravel road at a point approximately 22 miles north of Iroquois Falls.

“From the intersection of secondary Highway 652 and the Abitibi company gravel road, the Abitibi road also runs east to the Quebec border at LaReine, and from there to LaSarre, Val d’Or, Montreal, and northern New York State. The Abitibi Paper Co., by an agreement with the Ministry of Natural Resources, are to improve the gravel road to acceptable standards. This connecting road would provide additional traffic and tourists, and serve as a circle route.

“This area is the most attractive in northern Ontario, comparable to the Nipissing-Trout Lake-French River system and Muskoka.”

So it has got to be pretty good eh, Dick?

“The Ministry of Natural Resources already have land reserved for a provincial park in the area of these lakes. The Little Abitibi Lake and River system offers the best fishing in Ontario. To date this whole area has been reserved for the high-income groups of southern Ontario and the US, who can afford flying into the area for hunting and fishing. Even today all that is required to provide all-weather access to Pierre Lake and the chain of lakes is the placing of gravel on only 3 1/2 miles of clay road. This small project, together with the approval of the Abitibi Paper Co. to use their access road, would make this excellent fishing, hunting and camping area available to all residents and taxpayers of this area, and attract thousands of tourists to our district. The completion of a trail for motorized snow vehicles from Cochrane to Moosonee in the spring will also attract many … ”

So they went on record as being very much in favour of the road to Moosonee going up that way. And a letter was written to Mr. F. Lacroix, president of the Board of Trade, Box 1468, Cochrane, Ont.:

“Dear Mr. Lacroix:

“Please accept my warmest thanks for the very well-prepared brief by the Cochrane Board of Trade, presented on behalf of the communities of Moose Factory, Moosonee, Iroquois Falls and Cochrane to the mid-September meeting of the Resources Development Policy Field committee.

“In regard to the selection of a route for a road connecting King’s Highway No. 11 with James Bay, I am very pleased to be able to say that, of the various routes presented for consideration by the Northern Ontario Resources Transportation Committee, my ministry has consistently preferred and supported the route that you advocate.

“More specifically, the main road should connect Abitibi’s north-south road of their Iroquois Falls division with Pierre and Kesagami Lakes and then proceed to the Argor Explorations columbium deposit on South Bluff Creek and terminate in the area of Bushy Island, located in the Moose River estuary. A crossing of the Moose River would complete what is considered essential for access to resources and the people of this area.

“My ministry is deeply appreciative of your contribution to the meeting.

“Yours sincerely … ”

It looks like the name of Leo Bernier, minister. So I guess the minister is in favour of that route.

I would like to see more consideration being given to develop that park. This study is called the Henderson report, but I can see that the hand of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) runs all through the report --

Mr. Laughren: It is not that Henderson needs any help.

Mr. Ferrier: One thing that he is suggesting, as far as public parks and recreational concerns are concerned, is that we should move to a reprivatization of some of these things. Let the public sector do it -- the private sector.

Mr. Shore: Don’t get mixed up.

Mr. Martel: He will fly to the Mediterranean.

Mr. Ferrier: We heard the Treasurer make those statements -- or he’s reported to have made those statements down in -- Trinity College is it? -- in Port Hope; or one of those private schools. He wanted to move in that direction. He kind of got off that kick of reprivatization but here this report is suggesting it.

I’m telling you that with a commitment to public recreation and the development of northern Ontario we can’t go along with that kind of recommendation. I think the parks programme of this ministry is one they can be justifiably proud of.

Mr. Laughren: The great minister of parks.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, parks and trees.

Mr. Ferrier: I would view with very great disfavour the move suggested by Mr. Henderson to move to reprivatization.

Interjection.

Mr. Ferrier: He also said maybe the big companies and even some of the smaller companies should be paying their way more as far as silviculture is concerned, if I read him correctly. Maybe their taxes have to be adjusted a little bit but they should be doing the work, not leaving it for the ministry.

That’s something they may look into. We’ve said all along that the companies should accept some of the responsibility and it should not all be in the hands of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

They also said that the WORT committee’s programme, if I understand them, should be carefully looked at and that the users of those roads, the companies demanding them, should have more input in terms of cost rather than the public purse.

Those who live on the Great Lakes, like my friend from Kent-Elgin (Mr. Spence), will wonder at the statement suggesting that capital expenditure by conservation authorities to develop water control along Lake Erie and some of those places should be borne more by the municipalities than by the province.

A lot of his suggestions can’t be taken at face value or there would be a revolution in this province, I suspect. We’ll wait to see how the minister responds to some of those things.

Another thing I would be remiss on if I didn’t bring it up once again is the Minister of Natural Resources finding some way to allow the handicapped people of this province into provincial parks without having to pay.

A year ago he said he was consulting with the Minister of Community and Social Services and I thought we pretty well had all that arranged. It was more a matter of identity than anything else. If they could find a way of identifying these people the minister was prepared to move but he hasn’t moved yet. I have a very faithful constituent who with regularity, four or five times a year, brings that to my attention and I’ll bring it to the minister’s attention.

Another area of concern is one of adequate fish and wildlife management. The minister points out that they’ve increased the budget there, I believe, and you have 25 new conservation officers. Mr. Chairman, you will remember, as the member for Thunder Bay, you spoke very forcefully on this a number of times and the present Speaker had some input as well. Hopefully, our representations had some bearing on the minister’s report to Management Board and he was able to get this commitment.

The thing that has really aggravated the hunting and fishing clubs in my riding and, I think, in other parts of the province is what you referred to earlier: The fact that these conservation officers are working in some of the provincial parks and other programmes and are not spending their time on fish and wildlife management. We don’t downgrade the work in the parks, but if they are going to be designated for this important function we feel they should be working at it full time.

I have talked to people in the field and they say that the kind of budgets that are allotted to the conservation officers are such that they are allotted such a measly amount for driving and operation that sometimes they haven’t even got enough money left to go out and investigate a complaint. They say that you don’t even give them enough money for that.

Now, the strategic land use committee in my part of the province is suggesting that we have got to increase the recreational benefits from fishing in this province very considerably in the next number of years. If we are going to do that, one of the prerequisites is to get an adequate inventory of the lakes in the province, particularly in the north, to see what kind of fish population they can carry and develop. This work must be done by this fish and wildlife branch, and some of these conservation officers with some students. I would suggest that you consider making them full-time, and if you are going to be able to manage our resource properly that they have got to be doing that work. If we are going to provide for this kind of healthy recreation, then let’s get on with the job.

I am glad to see that you are doing a little more in the fish-hatchery situation, but we must have a great deal more commitment, after inventory work is done, to the restocking of our lakes and streams to provide an adequate fishing experience for our people. It may not be possible to make the fishing experience as good as the old days were, but we can do a lot more about it -- and this party is concerned that work take place in that direction -- that there be much more stocking.

Another thing that is of concern to a lot of people is the way that some poachers and people on the Credit River down here, and other places during the pickerel-spawning season, will go in with, what do you call those?

Mr. Martel: Dipping nets.

Mr. Ferrier: Not dip nets, gill nets maybe -- and those spears. There are all kinds of ways to deplete the pickerel during their spawning season. I know they are a productive fish.

But some were caught. There was some greater attention given to it, and some of the conservation officers were treated rather badly, I believe.

The work is good and it must be enforced with greater resolve. I am glad to see that there is still attention being given to trying to provide a humane trap. Perhaps the minister would say if that man from Timmins was successful in developing one? I don’t know.

There is one other item that I want to deal with, and then I’d better yield the floor.

Mr. Shore: No, no, don’t do that, stick in there.

Mr. Ferrier: I am glad the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has stayed in here to hear my speech today.

Mr. Nixon: It is great. I have heard it for the last four years, and it gets better every year.

Mr. Ferrier: I am glad to know that.

Mr. Martel: That is what the public said to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk on Sept. 18.

Mr. Ferrier: We didn’t see him in Timmins during the election. We were very disappointed that he didn’t make it.

Mr. Nixon: A little cool, I found it.

Mr. Martel: It was your first trip to the north, wasn’t it?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Ferrier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing those unruly Liberals into line, and giving me the opportunity to continue my speech. I thought the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk was wanting me to say something about Texasgulf. You know, during the election his candidate and his father were thrown off the Texasgulf property for trying to meet a few of the workers, and put forward Liberal policy and platform. I think Murray Gaunt maybe resolved that problem that you had in discussing it. And my wife and I and a few others were put off the Texasgulf property, but the Premier (Mr. Davis) and his candidate were --

Mr. Nixon: They must remember, they should remember, that you voted against your party and in favour of them when the government wanted to give them some assistance. They should be more grateful for your friendship.

Mr. Ferrier: Yes, I did. Yes, I did. We all make mistakes. I think maybe you might even be prepared to admit that you might have made a mistake or two.

[5:30]

Mr. Nixon: I will agree with you that you made a mistake.

Mr. Ferrier: I maybe made a few mistakes but judging by the thing in this House, you have made a lot of mistakes. Anyway, the Premier and his candidate were able to go on Texasgulf property and to mix with the white hats and talk to the workers of Texasgulf so the Texasgulf --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Will the hon. member for Cochrane South confine his remarks to these estimates?

Mr. Ferrier: This is to do with the mines of the province, Mr. Chairman --

Interjection.

Mr. Ferrier: -- and I was just saying that Texasgulf know who their friends are and when an election is on.

Mr. Nixon: And you are one of them.

Mr. Ferrier: They know that you are not one of them. They know that I am not but the Premier and his candidate are.

Mr. Nixon: A little fairer treatment.

Mr. Ferrier: I want to conclude that I think it is time, if your Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) is suggesting that students have to pay more of their education as far as post-secondary education costs are concerned, that your conservation branch should take a look at the allocations of its SWORD and SWEEP programmes. The Mattagami region conservation authority has had its area and responsibility expanded a couple of years ago so that they are responsible for not just the small area they had but the great vast area in the largest city in the province.

You still continue to allocate the same number of students each summer to them. What usually happens is that your officials say: “Oh well, we will just do the same as last year. We won’t even look at the changed circumstances.” I think it is time that your officials took a look at the need in the Mattagami Region Conservation Authority, look at the work that is needed out at KamKotia Park which is a great demand as far as work is concerned. A lot of use is made by the public of it, and other parts of the region, where students could do the work in the summer. And I think you’ve got to re-allocate your priorities and give us a little more help and attention up there in my riding.

Now that there has been a change in the Chair, I guess there should be a change in the speakers, and I will conclude my remarks.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure as leadoff speaker for the Liberal Party to present our views and comments on the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources. I was interested in the comments of the member for Cochrane South in his leadoff speech when he was talking about the problems of the strike in the pulp industry in the Province of Ontario.

I would like to know what position they will be taking on the bill that I introduced to the House this afternoon concerning the amendments to the Labour Relations Act. The purpose of the bill is to provide a mechanism whereby the minister can order parties to a strike or lockout to end the strike or lockout for a period of 60 days during which time the parties may try to reach a settlement.

The bill will be discussed or debated Monday afternoon during the private members’ hour. I was wondering what reference he was trying to convey to the minister in saying: “What plug are you going to pull out to assist the paper industry in getting back to the bargaining table?”

Mr. Laughren: The private-ownership plug.

Mr. Haggerty: Is that what it is? Or the nationalization of the pulp and paper industry in the Province of Ontario?

Mr. Nixon: The NDP is going to nationalize everything up there in the north. They are going to take over the mines, take over the forest industry, the land.

Mr. Haggerty: I thought perhaps that we were going to follow the practice that has been followed out in British Columbia under the Barrett government where they just went in and legislated them all back to work.

Mr. Martel: Good government. Great government out there.

Mr. Shore: Why don’t you move out there?

Mr. Nixon: They forced them back to work.

An hon. member: He forced them all back to work.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for Erie has the floor.

Mr. Haggerty: This ministry is of great importance to the Province of Ontario as it relates particularly to the province’s economic growth pattern and revenue generated by the province’s forestry industry, mining industry and the tourist industry and creating much of Ontario’s hard core labour force and much of Ontario’s secondary employment. This party strongly believes that over the past decade and the early 1970s this ministry has lacked in leadership, or perhaps I should say the government of the day has done little to improve or to provide Ontario with a sound management programme for its natural resources, The history of resources management in Ontario shows that the resources planning has most often been carried on an ad hoc basis. This view has been aptly expressed by Prof. H. B. Nelles in a recent publication entitled, “The Politics of Development Forests, Mines and Hydro-Electric Power in Ontario.” He states:

“The habit of authority that survived from the 19th century did not greatly alter the pattern of resources development. It did, however contribute to the reduction of government, despite an expansion of its activities, to a client of the business community.

“This need not have been so. The failure to bring the regulatory and service functions of the state into the framework of democratic accountability was the failure to pursue the logic of responsible government into the industrial age.”

Too often in the past the pattern in this province has been of a fragmented approach to resource management. Major future developments of our resources must result from the techniques of the co-ordinated management and comprehensive resources planning. This pattern of a lack of responsible government is evident in all sectors of our natural resources.

I have several topics that I will discuss in more detail, outlining the areas where the government has not responded to any noticeable degree to improve our resources management programme. The abundance of the forest products readily available and the presence of minerals have added much to northern Ontario development and have generated much in revenue for the province and the related industries but little, if any, returns of actual benefit for Ontario in the long run as the province’s resources are being depleted, and the indecision of the government to provide for Ontario in the next quarter century that remains continues.

As it seems to be a practice set by the minister to withhold reports and information relating to the estimates being debated in the Legislature, how any one member may properly scrutinize the estimates of this Ministry of Natural Resources is questionable. It can be considered as an attempt at deception which denies the members of the Legislature an opportunity to properly assess the minister’s accountability to the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: On a point of order, would the member explain those remarks a little more carefully about the hiding of reports and not providing members with enough information.

Mr. Haggerty: I will get into that. Let’s put it this way since you asked me the question. The former Minister of Lands and Forests (Mr. Brunelle) always used to give us sufficient information on mineral production in the Province of Ontario and on forest production, all in detail in the past recorded year. We haven’t seen this last year or this year or I think for the last two or three years. That is what I am getting at.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I can answer that while we are on the subject. As you know, this was discussed on a number of occasions and a Management Board order about three years ago in a period of constraint directed us to stop this type of publication. The information is available in our ministry library. If you just grab the phone, or go down and see them, they have a very extensive library where all that information is available, but we don’t publish it for extensive use throughout the entire province.

Mr. Haggerty: Surely the members of this Legislature should have access to that, and not have to go to a library. It should be put on each desk here in the Legislature. We shouldn’t have to cow-tail to the ministry on that basis. That information should be here.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member would continue with his remarks on the estimates.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes. It is a reflection of last year’s estimates and the heated debates that followed. The efforts put forth by the opposition parties surely indicate that much was to be desired in improving the management of Ontario’s natural resources. This party can take much of the credit for putting forth arguments on behalf of Ontario’s employees in the mining resource industry, to expose some of the poor working conditions and the environment that many miners are confronted with, with little if any government involvement.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: That’s the joke of the year!

Hon. Mr. Bernier: How can things be so bad if everybody wants to take the credit for it?

Mr. Haggerty: I thought that would get a rise out of some of the members to my right.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please, the Chair is having difficulty listening to the remarks of the member for Erie.

Mr. Laughren: He is misleading Ontario.

Mr. Haggerty: I am sure all members of the Legislature welcome the minister’s announcement establishing the Ham commission to investigate matters of health as well as environmental and safety factors affecting the mine workers in the province. It’s a study long overdue in the area of industrial health hazards.

The province’s miners have worked and lived with a fear of silicosis and lung cancer and the knowledge that the rest of Ontario apparently cares little about the risks they run. Opposition members have been urging the government for some time to take effective and immediate action to reduce the health hazards to which our miners and workers in related industries, that is smelters, are exposed.

The announcement in June, 1974, by the minister on the government’s measures to reduce health hazards in Ontario mines stated that the government has undertaken to spare no effort to ensure that whatever deficiencies may be found in its sensitivity to the health needs of the miners, they will be rectified; although it neglected to mention that it has taken considerable probing and questioning on the part of opposition members to make the government sensitive to these needs.

I find this is a rather precarious position that the government now finds itself -- an embarrassment of conceit. All I can do is refer to page 17 of the minister’s statement this afternoon:

“Mr. Chairman, I feel it can be reasonably said that we did not fully recognize or assess a number of important changes in the field of health and safety of mine workers over the past few years. One of the changes has been labour’s growing awareness of health and safety measures. Another has been the result of the advance of medical knowledge and awareness coupled with vastly improved techniques for measuring health and safety levels.”

It’s pretty hard to accept that apology because I am sure there have been a number of occasions when members on this side of the House and the opposition have brought this matter forward to the government to make it aware of the problems of industrial health conditions and poor hygienic conditions in the mines. I can recall that for the past eight years -- and I can go back to 1960 -- there’s been enough information available that you should have acted then, not now.

Mr. Martel: You never know, do you?

Mr. Haggerty: Let us hope that the results and the recommendations from the Ham commission will prevent conditions that constitute a hazard to the health of the workers and miners and related industries.

Mr. Laughren: You are really worried now, where were you before?

Mr. Haggerty: Hopefully, it places safety inspection under the Ministry of Labour for the enforcement of mandatory health and safety standards, or even the Ministry of Health, particularly as it relates to the environmental health section of the Ministry of Health.

During the minister’s estimates, on May 16, 1974, he touched on a national resources study given at a meeting held with resources ministers from other provinces.

To my knowledge we have not seen what has become of the national resources study. The public should be informed as to what direction the government plans to adopt in the management of our resources in the next quarter-century, particularly as it relates to energy resources. Has the minister or the government taken any steps to adopt some of the recommendations on foreign ownership in the mining industry as suggested in the report of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism?

The minister has indicated that his own ministry was reviewing the report of its efforts, and the mining industry will be commenting, and it will go to the policy field and then on to the government of Ontario.

We are greatly concerned about this particular matter, particularly in this area which has so far been void of any government action. The mineral aggregate advisory committee should be established now to examine the entire aggregate situation. We are greatly concerned over the amount of foreign ownership and control of the Canadian mining and smelting industry and we need to have more processing and fabricating of minerals carried out in Canada. The high proportion of fabricated products among our mineral imports seems to suggest that there is some room for further processing minerals in Ontario, if only for the Canadian market.

[5:45]

The annual statistical report on the mineral production of Ontario from the Department of Mines was the only publication to list the amount of processing in Ontario of major minerals mined in this province. The most recent year for this publication was 1970. However, figures in this publication show that: cadmium, 19.1 per cent of the concentrate was smelted in Ontario and 12 per cent refined in Quebec; cobalt, 36.3 per cent smelted and refined in Ontario and the rest outside of Canada; copper, 67.7 per cent smelted in Ontario, and 57.7 per cent refined in the province; gold, 94.2 per cent refined in Ontario; iron, 494 per cent smelted and refined in Ontario; lead, none in Ontario, eight per cent was processed in British Columbia; nickel, 56 per cent refined in Ontario; silver, 19.5 per cent refined in Ontario and 28.1 per cent refined in other Canadian refineries; zinc, none in Ontario, 11.1 per cent processed in Quebec.

I would ask the minister whether his ministry has more recent figures concerning this question? It is my belief that section 113 of the Mining Act, which requires that ores and minerals shall be treated and refined in Canada so as to yield refined metals, has not contributed to any additional development of minerals and metals in this province. Treatment and refinement of ores and minerals must be encouraged through the use of incentives and less through exemptions to the Mining Act.

The minister has also yet to make a decision on the report of foreign ownership in the mining industry in Ontario. Are we to expect that any of these recommendations will be adopted? We have suggested on this side that the government apply a mineral export tax to encourage complete processing of Ontario minerals in Ontario. It is also a measure for obtaining additional revenue that could be used for the further exploration and development in Ontario, thus maintaining a healthy climate for employment opportunities. The Onakawana feasibility study, along with Ontario Hydro who was also interested in this report, the minister has promised a statement in June, 1975.

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, to back up some of the arguments that I have been putting forward, the report of the advisory committee on the revision of the Mining Act, December, 1974, says:

“The spirit in which this section was written is obvious in its intention to be beneficial to the development of resources in Ontario, with the ultimate goal of beneficiating the mineral resources to their highest form of refinement in the province before sale locally for export. To date we have not had access to any facts that would lead us to believe that this section of the Act has contributed to any additional development of minerals and metals in the province. On the contrary, there would appear to be strong evidence that the iron mining portion of the mineral industry has suffered severe setbacks in the area of development of new iron ore mines since the section became part of the Mining Act.”

That’s chapter 8 of “The Export of Unrefined Ore.”

Recently we have been warned of the pending crisis in the mineral aggregate supply in this province. However, we must demand that any need to supply aggregates in Ontario not overshadow the need for other equally important requirements. A balance most be struck between alternative needs, and this can be best met by proper planning of future land use.

This province is in need of a good plan for the future management of mineral aggregates. While we cannot have both untouched rural hinterland and urban and industrial growth as well, it is the manner in which the province directs a compromise between those competing land uses which deserves immediate attention. There is no doubt that certain areas must be left untouched because of the detrimental impact which aggregate extraction has on the environment and where aggregate has been extracted.

Rehabilitation must be as complete and effective as possible. We are all aware that the direction and degree of the growth has profound implications on projected needs for aggregate. Therefore, a comprehensive plan for land use and resource development, which would set aside certain reserve areas for future use and facilitate aggregate extraction in designated areas is urgent priority.

A formulation of such a plan must result from consultation with the municipalities to ensure compatibility with their official plans. The formulation of this plan must take into consideration the supply, within environmental considerations over the long term, and prevent urban and private development from encroaching upon the supply where its extraction is the least detrimental.

It is most urgent that we do have a province-wide policy regarding land use in this province including the extraction industry. The minister must now move to apply the Pits and Quarries Control Act uniformly across Ontario. The Act should, however, continue to recognize local planning controls under the Planning Act within the framework of the province-wide set of guidelines.

The impact of existing quarries that are still being worked, but to which the conditions of the Pits Act do not apply, should fully be required to file approved site plans and incentives might be given to aid rehabilitation of abandoned operations.

A most disturbing matter, which is occurring more and more frequently today concerning gravel pit operations in this province, has arisen as a result of the deficiencies in the Pits and Quarries Control Act. In cases where operations are existing at a time that an area is designated under the Act, no public notice of the application for a gravel operation is given, and no opportunities for objections are reported. A practise of stockpiling has thus allowed many operators to dress up an inactive site to appear to be in current operation at the time of designation.

As long as the operator remembers to excavate a few yards each year, he may rest secure in the knowledge that no notice of his application or opportunity to object will be given to his neighbours at the time his area is designated. The Act is absolutely silent on this malpractice and the minister should move to plug up this deficiency. Moreover, a complete environmental impact assessment should be made prior to the licensing of any new extraction operation. Where an open pit operation has been undertaken, acceptable rehabilitation programmes should be approved before the operation begins and the programme should be carried out in stages as extraction proceeds.

Penalties for non-compliance should be levied and such progressive rehabilitation made mandatory. The crippling effect of the rehabilitation procedures in the Pits and Quarries Control Act lies in the weak planned site requirements. The operator may strictly meet all the demands made of him and yet not have to show final grades or excavation scheme, the rehabilitation, or even the ultimate pit development.

There is very little that an operator can be held to do. The transportation costs represent up to 50 per cent of the consumer price for the aggregate and it’s 90 per cent done by trucks. Is the ministry examining the implications of extending rail networks to cover large potential deposits? The provincial governments should move to reimburse municipalities to cover the cost of maintenance on roads used by gravel pit operators.

New gravel developments which are approved in the future must be planned so the road by-passes built-up areas. Road traffic and noise are the greatest complaint. This situation must be prevented before it occurs. After all, a municipality would rather do without a gravel pit, with its inherent difficulties, than approve one. Yet we need all the aggregates in the future. An important remedy to alleviate this situation would be to centralize the growth in the Toronto region.

Another important area in which the Ministry of Natural Resources regrettably lacks initiative is one that’s becoming alarmingly critical: the shortfall of reforestation programmes. I noticed that his 45- or 46-page leadoff speech today did include some programme on reforestation in the Province of Ontario, and rightfully so.

With the $41 million increase in his budget this year, I think he should have something in that speech this afternoon to indicate what programmes he does have outlined for this coming period and perhaps the next 25 years. The province is continually falling behind in this regeneration programme despite its 10-year programme for reforestation.

The forest industry is in the midst of a $500 million capital expansion surge that began in 1971 and is expected to increase the annual softwood harvest by more than 60 per cent to about 10.5 million units a year.

In the past year alone Abitibi Paper Co. Ltd. of Toronto has begun construction of a sawmill at White River with a capacity of 70 million board feet a year and acquired two independent lumber companies with 140 million board feet capacity. The Great Lakes Paper Co. Ltd. in Thunder Bay announced that it would double annual lumber capacity to 100 million board feet in July, 1973. In December, 1973, it announced plans to expand the lumber capacity to 200 million board feet, then add 250,000 tons a year to the pulp capacity.

Kimberly-Clark of Canada Ltd. of Toronto announced in October, 1973, that it would build a lumber mill at Terrace Bay with a capacity of 35 million board feet and in July, 1974, announced a $200 million expansion of pulp capacity at Terrace Bay from 450 tons a day to 1,250 tons. Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co. Ltd. of Kapuskasing plans to build a sawmill capacity of 85 million board feet, I guess it is. Anglo-Canadian Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. announced in March that it plans to build sawmills with a capacity of about 460 million board feet over the next four years, plus 1,000 tons a day of new pulp capacity.

Since the government’s policy is that the forests of Ontario must be managed in such a way as to ensure the greatest continuous benefits to the people of Ontario, the calculation of the allowable cut alone, without serious and adequate consideration of silvicultural inputs -- regeneration -- as is the case in Ontario, would constitute an inadequate management of the forests.

While Ontario’s forest industry is in the midst of greatly increased expansion, we are continually falling behind in the regeneration of the cutover Crown lands. An analysis of figures from the Ministry of Natural Resources report aptly demonstrates the deficiency in the regeneration programme.

In the year 1972, ending March 31, the area of cutover Crown lands was 345,405 acres. The area regenerated by the silvicultural treatment was 167,320 acres. Therefore, a shortfall of 178,000-some acres was left unregenerated.

In 1973 the area regenerated by the Ministry of Natural Resources was 165,190 acres. No figures were given for the number of acres that were cut over and needed regeneration, but it is interesting to note that this figure is below the number of acres regenerated in 1972, while the wood cut had increased.

The hour is 6 o’clock? I can’t see the clock.

Mr. Chairman: If the hon. member has reached a convenient point to break?

Mr. Haggerty: I can make a break here then, yes.

Mr. Nixon: A quarter of the way through.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.