The House resumed at 8 p.m.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: When we rose at 6 o’clock the hon. member for Erie had the floor.

Mr. Haggerty: I was discussing the report presented to the government in 1972 by the forestry division of the Ministry of Natural Resources. At the end of the 10-year programme they estimated the province would be able to regenerate the number of acres which had been cut over. However, the increased expansion in the forest industry was not accounted for.

The amount of money generated from the forest industry in Ontario, that is, through stumpage, forest management, and fire protection was $17,058,000 in 1973-1974. For 1974-1975 it had been estimated that $30,600,000 will be received by the doubling of Crown dues paid for cutting timber on Crown lands and by reducing the large number of different grading groups on which payment of the dues is based. In 1973-1974, 142,265 acres of forest were regenerated at a cost of $4.5 million. For 1974-1975 the target estimate is that 148,600 acres will be regenerated at a cost of $7.8 million. The provincial government thus is intending to spend only about 23 per cent of its revenue from forests on forestry for 1974-1975.

I feel that the Ontario regeneration policy is greatly lacking. Last year the Ministry of Natural Resources had estimated that 370,000 acres should have been regenerated, rather than the actual 142,265 acres as was the case. Not enough is being done on the regeneration programme, especially in light of the great expansion of the wood industries. I was delighted to see in the minister’s leadoff speech that he’s indicated that they do have another programme on reforestation. Hopefully, this is going to meet the goal.

If not, I think we are going to be lacking in forest products for the next 25, 30 or 50 years. I think there is much to be learned by the reforestation programmes in the Scandinavian countries. I hope the minister has made a trip over there to see what they are doing, because certainly they have a good management programme on forestry, particularly in relation to the forest industry. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be surviving today.

The other matter I wanted to talk about is the provincial government taking an irresponsible approach to the mercury pollution hazard in the English and Wabigoon river systems. Opposition members have been urging the government for five years now to take immediate and effective action to protect the Indians of the Grassy Narrows and Whitedog reserves along these river systems whose health is threatened by mercury contaminated fish. I am very disappointed at the lack of initiative so far demonstrated by the government.

It is sheer irresponsibility on the part of the Ontario government to claim that there is no health problem among the Kenora area Indians who eat the mercury-contaminated fish. The only action announced by the government has been the statement by the Ministry of Health to send a group of specialists to Japan to consult experts there on the disease. The health hazards to which these people are exposed are very real and we, on this side, have urged that more vigorous action on the situation be taken.

Government statements clearly indicate that they are not yet convinced of the gravity of the situation. While the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) has admitted that 20 to 30 Indians tested by the provincial and federal governments’ investigators showed symptoms of the disease, he added that they are “hard to pin down” to mercury pollution.

Earlier this year a group of the foremost mercury poison specialists from Japan warned Ontario that the Indians on the two reserves have blood levels 50 times higher than that considered safe and warned Ontario “not to repeat the Minimata tragedy,” referring to the Japanese city where 200 people died violently and painfully from mercury poisoning and 750 are incurably ill.

It is truly unbelievable that five years after the problem was identified, the Environment Minister has promised that the polluter, Dryden Paper Co. Ltd., won’t be dumping mercury by the end of 1975. However, the pollutant remains in the bed of the river, contaminating the fish and damaging the life of the Indians. Long after the company is gone, the river will not be restored.

We on this side demand that compensation be provided to those who have lost out as a result of the pollution, both the Indian people and the tourist operators. It was on April 2, 1970, that the then Minister of the Environment, George Kerr, stated in the House in reply to questions on the mercury pollution situation in Ontario that: “It is the policy of those representing the Ontario government to arrange for full compensation for any losses to fishermen.” He also demanded that Dryden Chemical Co., the polluter, be taken to court behalf of the people of Ontario for the mercury pollution in the English and Wabigoon river systems. It is time that pollution of this magnitude be considered a criminal offence.

Well, we have the appointment of a minister -- he’s in the House tonight too -- again in this portfolio. We are hopeful that he is going to take the polluter to the courts. I can recall the day that he stood up in the House here and he said: “The polluter will pay.” We are still waiting for that day in court. The provincial government is still in the process of bringing Dow Chemical Co. to court for the mercury pollution of Lake St. Clair. Hopefully, the minister can remember that one.

In the English and Wabigoon river systems, there has merely been some mention of the provincial government taking the company to court. I have noticed recently that the new minister, the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario (Mr. McMurtry), has indicated that he is going to take them to court. So eventually we may get some action that these persons are brought to the courts.

Apparently the court channel depends upon the outcome of the suit against Dow Chemical. If the Dow suit is unsuccessful, it is most unlikely that Dryden Chemical Co. will be taken to court. It is also unlikely that a suit against Dow will be won.

No compensation has been paid to the fishermen. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) has stated that:

“Our policy is that there will be no compensation for industrial pollution. That is stated government policy. The polluter is responsible and the courts are open to individuals to take on the polluter.”

What chance do individuals have with meagre or non-existent funds when the government has been unsuccessful for the last five years?

Compensation must be paid out by the government to those who have lost out as a result of the pollution. The need is for strong and consistent enforcement procedures. The fact is that the government must have an increasing role to play in the development of Ontario’s resources. Until co-ordinated programmes come into being, abatement of industrial pollution from existing establishments is likely to proceed no more quickly than the present modest rate.

I am also greatly concerned that the subdivision developments on our lakes are being approved on a hit-or-miss basis. A wider perspective must be required before approval of a subdivision development is approved. The situation today is that individual proposals for developments on Ontario water bodies are being approved without an examination of the carrying capacity of the entire lake. There have been innumerable instances where approvals have been granted, such as on Lake Nosbonsing, on Nappan Island. That has been hammered out on different occasions in the House, brought to the attention of the ministers and many others, where the burden of extra motor boats and extra pollution will greatly add to the destruction of the aquatic environment.

A comprehensive methodology must be developed which will examine the cumulative effects of development in a water body. Instead of creating for ourselves a cleanup situation as has been the case in the past, we must prevent the situation before it occurs.

We now have a situation consisting of a fragmentation of effort with different ministries being asked for their views by the Ministry of Housing before developments are approved. As is most often the case, not enough time -- 60 days -- is allowed to carry out proper studies on these lakes. Therefore, in many instances when I have spoken to biologists in your ministry regarding subdivision approvals, the view that has been expressed is that a development will proceed because there is not enough data on which to oppose it. Carrying capacity of a lake is still a nebulous term.

Basically, the Ministry of Natural Resources had done its studies on critical lakes and not on all lakes. Often one set of guidelines has been used both for northern lakes and warmer lakes of southern Ontario. However, you cannot use one set of guidelines for both types of lakes because of variances in results. It must be a major responsibility for the government to prevent destruction of our water bodies.

I want to refresh the minds of some of the members of the Legislature and also to inform the new members of some of the past promises of the government in its programme for the development of northern Ontario to provide the citizens of many small communities with the same as perhaps the other communities in southern Ontario now possess -- and that is, the matter of all the amenities required for a community to survive on.

At times I think the minister and his cabinet colleagues have amnesia. Can you recall the Throne Speech, I believe it was, of 1973 or 1974? The government announced that legislation was being initiated for the incorporation of communities in territories without municipal organization, but Bill 102 in 1974 providing such legislation died on the order paper. Are these communities going to be continually misled and neglected? I suppose if one were to look closely at the first word in the minister’s portfolio, “natural” means “unaffected,” “insensibility,” “apathy of the government to be responsible.”

This is one particular area where the federal government has shown some responsibility in providing assistance through the DREE programme. Surely then, this ministry, which has a larger share of the government’s responsibility, must provide more active programmes to use the availability of regional development subsidies -- already signed and agreed to with the federal government for both the northwest and the northeast -- to provide basic community services such as sewers, water, and recreation similar to the facilities that the larger communities in northern Ontario and southern Ontario now have.

[8:15]

To ease restrictions in sewer and water installations in the north, where environmental conditions permit, and to speed the development of new housing we need a strong commitment to established priorities for improved road transportation in northern Ontario. We need consideration by the government to strengthen and expand the Northern Development Corp. to include on its board of directors all elected northern members of the Legislature to guide future growth and government expenditures in the north.

While I’m talking on that particular matter I think the minister should be moving more of his staff to areas in northern Ontario. I think this is where his ministry should be working from, not from here at Toronto.

The other matter that I want to bring to the attention of the minister is the matter of the high levels of water particularly as it relates to Lake Erie. I’ve asked the minister or I’ve indicated to the minister that I thought he should be providing more initiative in this particular field, even, perhaps, to having an inquiry into the reasons Lake Erie remains at the high levels it does today.

As a member of the committee dealing with the Ontario Hydro rates, I’ve noticed in a number of the reports and information passed within that committee that Hydro is happy with the high levels on Lake Erie. It adds extra water for the hydraulic plant in Queenston and in the long run perhaps provides extra energy for Ontario, perhaps at a critical time.

Based upon that and the matter of the development of the St. Lawrence Seaway where there are larger ships with deeper draughts now using the inland waterways, that extra high level of water would be of great assistance to them. Based upon those two matters I’ve raised with you, I think it’s time that you do something about the high level of water in Lake Erie.

If you have to establish a committee of this Legislature to look into it, I think it would be the most appropriate step at this time, I think it’s time these people have some protection along the lakeshore. Many of them have spent quite an amount of money to provide some form of cribbing or some type of retaining wall along the lakeshore. I called home to my riding tonight and was informed that the winds are up again on Lake Erie, causing considerable concern to municipalities in the riding of Erie, such as the city of Port Colborne, the town of Fort Erie and the township of Wainfleet.

It does cause these municipalities considerable problems. One is that the high levels of water cause a high table of water to remain inland and causes some difficulties with the present sanitary and storm sewers. It has overloaded both systems and is going to cost quite a bit to find some remedy to control the levels of water going into the sewers and storm sewers.

I know the province has an 80-20 per cent assistance programme still available but that isn’t going to cover the cost for enlargement of storm sewers and sanitary sewers in these municipalities. If there are two bodies which gain results from the high levels of Lake Erie, for the benefit of all the people of Ontario and, perhaps, of all of Canada, I think there is more responsibility this government can take to assist those municipalities which are affected most by the high levels of water.

Hopefully, the minister will move in some direction to provide additional assistance to them. That concludes my remarks. I know there are other members who would like to continue with other particular parts of the estimates and I leave it with you how you continue with it.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have any reply to the opening remarks?

Mr. Martel: Does the minister intend to respond to any of those points?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I could respond to those two if you wish. I have a few notes here that I could talk on for a few minutes, maybe to set the record straight.

Mr. Haggerty: The record is straight, there are misconceptions.

Mr. Laughren: Let’s hear your defence.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I will respond to the member for Cochrane South first. I have just written in my notes here I feel a little bit of shock and surprise at his adamant attitude that the government become involved in the settling of the pulp and paper strike.

Mr. Ferrier: Yes, and I talked to the union officials in Iroquois Falls yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have to look at the enthusiasm of that particular member and his particular party in allowing these various groups to strike and their defence of the right to strike and the collective bargaining arrangements that we have in this province.

Mr. Moffat: Allowing?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is certainly something that we agreed to.

Mr. Martel: There is an article on good faith -- bargaining in good faith.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I just went through an election back --

Mr. Martel: Bargaining in good faith!

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I went through the election campaign about two months ago and I can remember that particular issue coming up. One of the things, of course, was the right of the civil service to strike and how adamant the NDP member was, and the Liberal member, that the civil service be given the right to strike and how he pounded the table and thought that was a great thing. I can’t help but relate to the situation now; now that we get into a strike --

Mr. Ferrier: Bargaining in good faith.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- you want the -- No, that’s a new cliché -- bargaining in good faith.

Mr. Moffatt: It is new to you.

Mr. Martel: How many ministers were around here for four years?

Interjections.

An hon. member: How about a little order over there.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: So we give them this right and now you expect us to move in and settle it. I think that our job is to bring them to the bargaining table.

Mr. Furrier: That is what I have been advocating. Bring them to the bargaining table.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Certainly, we will do everything we can. I have been involved with the discussions with the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) on a very regular basis as late as today --

Mr. Martel: Yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- and we will go back at it tomorrow afternoon again. To say we are not interested in correcting this particular situation, as it is affecting about 25,000 workers in the woods industry in northern Ontario, is entirely wrong. This government is very sensitive to the people in that particular area who are affected. We have a responsibility, of course, to use those resources in the betterment of the public at large.

Mr. Laughren: When do we start?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You know, I am very closely connected with that particular strike. In my home town, right today, there is a small mill that depends on the Great Lakes Pulp and Paper mill at Thunder Bay. They cannot ship their chips there. So, they have been on strike now for about 2½ months, not being able to ship their chips. When I go home, I have to tell you, just about a week ago was the first time that a group came to me, and said: “Look, do something. Up to now, we thought we could work it ourselves.” I have to tell you this further that they are not totally satisfied with the attitude of the union leaders in dealing with this particular issue. They are very dissatisfied. That is coming to me loud and clear. I have to put this on the record. It is something that they would like to speak about and it is coming to me.

Mr. Ferrier: That’s not the message I got.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, this is northwestern Ontario. It is there and it is something we have to deal with.

Mr. Laughren: It sounds like the Bryce Mackasey trip.

An hon. member: Secret ballot.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You mentioned the limits aspect and that the limits maybe should be taken away from those major corporations. Sometimes I think you fail to realize the capital investment that those companies have put in there on the strength that there would be a supply of that raw resource to maintain those jobs and to maintain productivity and to utilize a renewable resource.

Somebody said to me today: “Would you take the limits away from Abitibi if they don’t go to the bargaining table?” That, to me, is a little ridiculous. What would we do with huge trucks of timber, some of it over-mature? Some would have to be harvested. They have forest management plans. So, if we took the timber limits away from them, what would we do with it? There is no other place to process it.

An hon. member: Set up a Crown Corporation.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s there. Do you build a new mill? Do you take the mill away from them?

Mr. Ferrier: You are not doing anything while they are on strike.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is no relationship.

Mr. Ferrier: Responsible corporate backing --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is no relationship between the timber limits of those paper companies and the labour problems that they are having. There is just no relationship because they go hand in hand: the mill and the wood resources.

Mr. Ferrier: Put conditions on their right to use those limits.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That’s the type of management we use. You put in a mill, like we are doing in the Ear Falls and the Red Lake area. There is a pulp mill going in there. We allocate, after a very close inventory -- check on the inventories and the wood available in the area -- so that the two go hand in hand. The resources are there and the processing plant goes with them. To tie the two, it just doesn’t add up at all.

I was interested in the member’s comment about the free enterprise system. I was just waiting for him to refer to Sweden, really, because I heard in this House from that particular party how great things were in Sweden because it was all run by the government.

Mr. Moffatt: That is what you heard; that isn’t what we said.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You know, the public sector did everything. The public sector looked after all the forests. They owned all the trees.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They don’t. Go to Sweden. I went to Sweden myself and I learned that more than 50 per cent --

Mr. Martel: More than what?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: More than 50 per cent is held by the private sector.

Mr. Martel: Talk about economic planning.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I was left with the impression from previous discussions in this House that it was total socialism. It is not.

Mr. Germa: What are you talking about?

Mr. Martel: They plan. That’s more than you do.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Tell me how great things are over there. Don’t worry, they get the free enterprise. There’s a lot of free enterprise over there.

Mr. Martel: They plan the economy.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: And they are very active.

Mr. Laughren: They should be planning the economy here.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, I am telling you, don’t say that Sweden has a total socialistic economy, because they don’t.

Mr. MacDonald: Who said it was?

Mr. Moffatt: We never said it was.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, you guys have said it for years.

Mr. Bain: Socialism is capitalism reversed: In socialism the people get the benefits; in capitalism the corporations get the benefits.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They’ve got a mix and the trend is to go to the private sector, not the public. I can tell you that. The suggestion is that we get involved in controlling the major pulp and paper companies to stop the boom and bust aspect. You know, there hasn’t been that kind of a boom and bust in the forest industry. It’s tied very closely to world markets.

Mr. Shore: Talk to all of us.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They go up as the economy moves up and down. They are tied to that. The paper products are an essential part. That’s one thing that is very quickly affected as the economy drops. The need and the demand for paper products and paper packaging drops accordingly. So that is where you get the boom and bust. It’s tied to the economy. And how you could move in and level it off and make it an even and smooth process right across the board is just beyond me.

I don’t know how you would ever do that. Really, I think that’s just not possible. I don’t know of any economy in the western world that tends to control the corporate sector in that particular way. If you have one, I would like to see it. I would like to see where it has been done --

Mr. Martel: Go to Sweden.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- because it has not been done. And you know it has not been done.

We were over there. There was a very high demand for newsprint and they were very concerned because they weren’t able to keep up, they were having their peak then too. So they go along with it.

In connection with the mining aspect, I am glad the member recognized the ministry’s presence before a royal commission. I think you have to accept the fact that it’s very unusual. I don’t know if it has ever happened before in this province, where a government sets up a royal commission to look into a particular aspect of a certain problem and then that particular ministry and minister appear before that royal commission, which we did. We spent a whole day before the royal commission giving our side of the picture.

Mr. Laughren: Long apology.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We didn’t make any apologies. Sure we made mistakes. We admitted those mistakes. It’s all documented in our presentation.

We also pointed out a number of directions that we think we should be going in to improve the working conditions in our mines right across this province. We have gone a long way. We have asked the commissioner himself to give us his reaction after he had heard all the presentations across this province and indeed from other jurisdictions as to how our thinking and how our ideas would fit into an overall programme that would involve the workers with management in coming to certain conclusions and improving these particular conditions.

It surprised me that during the election campaign when I picked up the paper I read that a certain political party had announced a miners’ code and a miners’ bill of rights. I kept on reading and I swear it was out of the Ministry of Natural Resources’ report to the Ham commission.

Mr. Martel: No blood on our hands.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It was right there the whole works is right there.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: That’s terrible, Elie.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: So it shows that though you are reading our material and I think you are accepting it, you won’t admit it.

Interjection.

[8:30]

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You won’t admit it. And it’s there. And we intend to move ahead in this direction. We are looking anxiously to the report of the commissioner himself which should be around the end of February. In fact, getting back to the royal commission, I remember our estimates last year. There were some very emotional pleas made and we responded. As the leader of the New Democratic Party said: “Old Bernier went far beyond what we thought he would. We didn’t even expect that he would go that far.”

Mr. MacDonald: He did.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It shows that our concern was greater than yours, because we knew that there was something wrong. You fellows are taking the credit for it. It annoys me to hear that the New Democratic Party is the one that forced a royal commission on mines safety in the province.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Your leader is on record as saying I went far beyond what he expected.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In my opening remarks you’ll see the safety record as it relates to accidents in the mines of the Province of Ontario. It’s there for the record. The Mines Accident Prevention Association is sponsored by the industry. Labour wasn’t involved. They did it themselves. They were there. They paid the shot. They set up their own committee. They made an attempt. They made corrective measures. The record is there to show they have a good accident record in the minds of this province. Look around and compare us with other jurisdictions. We have gone further in this province than any other jurisdictions.

Mr. Moffatt: That’s not their fault. Tell us about the Reeves mine.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I’ll talk about the Reeves mine. Somebody mentioned we didn’t take any testing. We did take tests at the Reeves mine in 1968. The test at that time --

Mr. Laughren: For six years you have sat on that information.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It was available. We didn’t sit on any information.

Mr. Laughren: You had that for six years and you didn’t even tell the workers about it.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: You told the company.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would point out that there were new testing devices and changes in standards.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: I must remind the committee that there are only six hours and 43 minutes left for the committee of supply. If you want the opinion of the Chair, you are wasting time.

Mr. Reid: I think he was referring to the minister wasn’t he?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I just want to point out that the standards of 1968 were 12 fibres per cubic centimetre, I will give you the list and the times of the tests that we have taken at the Reeves mine over that particular period of time. It was 12 fibres per cubic centimetre. Then the standards changed down to five; now it is down to two.

Mr. Laughren: Tell us what the readings were when the standards were 12.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It was there. We did.

Mr. Laughren: Tell us what the readings were. Don’t tell us the standards were 12 when the readings were 200.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In certain areas, sure, when we moved in. But by saying that the mines safety branch has not been doing its job, I think you have done a disservice not only to the industry itself, but I think a disservice to the miners, because you have created a certain suspicion in the miners’ minds, a real suspicion and a feeling of distrust.

Mr. Martel: Get off your knees.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think there is a feeling of hate in certain cases and this is not good.

Mr. Laughren: I should think so.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I admit we make mistakes. I think you should get off that kick and get on the bandwagon and help us correct the situation. You have a responsibility too.

Mr. Laughren: I was in Elliot Lake. I know.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would point out you are a little more responsible than you were last year.

Mr. Martel: All you ever did was listen to Harold Davies for years.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Get with us and help us correct the situation; that’s all I can say.

Mr. Martel: Davies intercepted everything. You finally had to fire him.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, we didn’t.

Mr. Martel: No, you moved him out, because he buggered everything up.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There was one question about the mineral exploration corporation which was announced in the Throne Speech some time ago. As I indicated shortly after that particular announcement, we were working on a certain programme but with budgetary constraints we had to put it on the shelf for a period of time. That’s where it stands at the present time and, until financial conditions improve, it will remain there and we’ll have to depend on the private sector along with our mineral exploration assistance programme and along with our other programmes in the geological branch of the ministry to carry on. You asked for information on exemption 113. What you are interested in is the new exemptions that were given.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is quite a list. These are the total ones here. I am just wondering whether it may take too much time of the committee.

Mr. Ferrier: Will you make a photocopy of that list and send it to my office?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I will photostat it and send it across. I will get each a copy. Maybe that will be simpler and if there are questions relating to this, maybe we can --

Mr. Haggerty: Is it up to date? Not 1970?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This was revised on Oct. 20, 1975, so it gives you the latest information on all exemptions. I will get copies of this and make sure you get copies for your remarks.

I think the member was mentioning the mining taxes, the taxes that are being obtained now from the non-renewable resources of this province. I think it is something like $152 million that will be taken in in this particular year. Next year we are estimating this to be about $100 million. That is because the profits will be down. Many of the metals themselves have all gone down drastically so it’s certainly showing up.

I have to admit as I look across this country of ours and see the problems in the mining industry, the disallowance of the writeoff of the provincial tax against the federal tax is causing me concern as the minister responsible for the development of the non-renewable resources of this province. I am wondering myself if maybe we have not gone just a little too far in putting too much tax burden on those particular mines of this province. I don’t want to mention them here tonight but there are several that are in financial difficulty today.

Mr. Laughren: Falconbridge.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, not Falconbridge. I exclude Falconbridge.

Mr. Germa: Inco is in trouble.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s one of a number of things. I tell you as the months and weeks go by we will be hearing more about this problem in the mining industry, and it gives me a great deal of concern. It’s something that I personally am going to take a very close look at, to see if that may be one of the causes. The mining industry as it affects the northern part of this province is something that we can’t afford to lose. In my own particular riding the mining industry is the second largest employer, so we have got to maintain that economic stimulus in that particular area and indeed right across the north.

You mentioned the Onakawana development -- some question as to where that stands. You will recall we entered into a tri-party feasibility study with the Manalta people, now called Mannix of Alberta, and the Ontario government and Ontario Hydro. Ontario Hydro has been going through the feasibility of that particular report, of the facts and figures in that report. As you correctly point out, the development of the Onakawana lignite deposit in this feasibility report shows that it could come in slightly under the present fossil fuel costs, much higher than nuclear and of course much higher than the water power that Hydro’s receiving now.

I am hopeful that we will have a firm statement from Ontario Hydro within the next short period, but I have to tell you that information coming to me -- it’s not firm yet, it’s maybe a little premature for me even to say it but I will -- is that Hydro is a little less than enthusiastic about moving into this particular type of development. I am not sure if it’s because of the lack of expertise or if it’s a cost factor or if it’s tied to their whole aspect of development and the long range planning for the supplying of electrical power to this province. But I expect that the reply will not be an enthusiastic one.

If that’s the case, then we will have to go back to the Onakawana people, to the Alberta coal, as they hold the expiration licence, to see if there may be some other avenue we could go. Maybe they would like to develop the power and sell it to Hydro or maybe we could go just to straight gasification. I think they have expressed an interest in processing some of that lignite for use in the Sudbury area as a briquette to be used in the smelters and in the paper mills of northern Ontario.

So there are a number of possibilities down the road that we think we can move on, but we have to have the reaction and a positive statement from Hydro because that is the first obstacle. We believe, as you do, that if there’s a source of energy there, it should be developed by Ontario Hydro in the interests of the people at large. There may be extenuating circumstances which I’m sure they will point out to us, if that is the situation.

One of the members mentioned the Henderson report of the Special Programme Review Committee that was just tabled. They mentioned the private sector should be involved or maybe take full responsibility for the regeneration of our forests and the silviculture programme on their own particular limits. This is not a new proposal. We’re looking at it very carefully. We want to make sure we have a guarantee, as we have in our own long-range programme, that in the year 2020, we will have 50 per cent more fibre available than we had in the year 1972. These are things that we will have to weigh out very carefully and the government will have to make a decision on those particular recommendations.

One of the members mentioned handicapped persons being allowed into provincial parks. As I pointed out to him last year, if we had some way to identify these people promptly it would make it much easier. I just want to tell him that groups of handicapped persons that are sponsored by an institution or a hospital are admitted into our provincial parks on a day-use or a camping basis free of charge. We’ve got that particular situation as it relates to groups in place, which makes it very acceptable to us. We’re still working with Community and Social Services and if they come up with some identity programme, it’ll certainly make it much easier for us to deal with.

The member for Erie mentioned a number of issues. I must admit I had difficulty hearing all his comments because of the acoustics, but I strongly felt that many of the points that he raised are answered in my opening remarks as they relate to the regeneration programme. I strongly feel that if you review what I said --

Mr. Haggerty: Well, you said that about five years ago and it is still on paper.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- in that opening statement, you’ll find a lot of answers to the questions you have raised.

The committee established to review the Mining Act, as I pointed out in my opening remarks, is established and is in place. We also have a mineral aggregate review committee that, as you correctly point out, is looking at the Pits and Quarries Control Act. I recall vividly when that particular piece of legislation was piloted through this Legislature indicating at that time that this was a new piece of legislation. Nowhere else on the North American continent do we have anything comparable or anything to look at, so there will be amendments required. We’ve set up a very general committee having broad representation from the municipalities.

Mr. Haggerty: Why haven’t you designated every municipality?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have designated, I would say, 90 per cent of the problem areas in the Province of Ontario, including Sudbury, I might say.

Mr. Haggerty: I can think of one now that you just designated about a year ago.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There may be the odd one. But here again, it’s a question of staff and personnel to police the Act.

Mr. Haggerty: You seem to pick and choose.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have to tell you that I’m satisfied as far as we’ve gone, but the Act itself has to be amended.

Mr. Haggerty: I think it’s a great piece of legislation.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, it’s a great step forward, but the Act itself has to be strengthened and have a few more teeth and a few corrective measures in it. You very clearly spelled them out. We’ll look at those comments and certainly make sure that particular review committee gets a copy of them because I think you made some very valuable contributions.

[8:45]

Mr. Haggerty: The main point I wanted to raise with the minister was that the municipalities should have some say in it. As it is now, the ministry has complete control; it can say what industry or quarry it wants to go into a municipality, without even consulting the municipality. What I want the ministry to do is to consult them first.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is not entirely correct, because under the Pits and Quarries Control Act today, if a new pit is to be established within their area of jurisdiction, and if that particular area is zoned as extractive, then of course it’s zoned as extractive; but if it’s not, then there have to be certain zoning amendments made. The municipality has the veto power if that is its feeling and its view. I think in section 6 of the Act it’s laid out in various clauses that they could veto that particular operation. In fact, we have taken it upon ourselves for about two years now to contact a municipality prior to issuing a licence for a pit and quarry to get their reaction and to get them involved; that is working very well. It may well be that we will have to strengthen that aspect of it, but at the present time they do have a veto power.

The question of a zinc or copper refinery in northern Ontario was raised by the member for Erie, I think. As I mentioned in my opening remarks we are reviewing the zinc potential in Ontario at the present time. He is quite right in stating that very little is refined in the Province of Ontario. We think there’s a possibility that something could be done along these lines in Ontario.

The hon. member will be interested to know that five zinc refineries in the United States have been closed up because of environmental problems, and that is creating a new problem here in Canada; there are a number of major firms looking around this country today to see where they could expand or establish a zinc smelter and refinery. That study is going on within the ministry at the present time.

I have to tell the hon. member that we did a review of the copper potential some time ago. It was not very encouraging for a number of reasons. We will be updating this information, of course, as new information comes forward. But the encouraging area would be something in the zinc field at the present time.

In connection with a mineral export tax, I think I have made known my views and my concerns as it affects the mining industry today and as we see the mining industry being affected right across the Province of Ontario. The hon. member will be interested to know about a small mining development in the Province of Manitoba. He knows the problems they had in bringing in amendments to their Mining Tax Act. Now I’m told there are certain exemptions being given so that over a certain period of time the capital required to develop that particular facility in Manitoba will be written off in taxes. So they are using tax incentive, much as we are doing here in the Province of Ontario, to get further processing in the northern part of their province.

I mentioned the amendments to the Mining Act are moving ahead. I hope they will result in certain changes that will make it easier for the mining industry, particularly to get on with more exploration. Regardless of what we do, if we don’t get exploration dollars going into northern Ontario or any part of this province we’ll never have any mineral discoveries.

Mr. Reid: Extend your plan.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Right now we have about $12 million or $18 million, maybe $14 million worth of exploration going on in the province. We should have $80 million. So we’re a long way down.

Mr. Haggerty: If you’re going to tie yourself in with the Shell oil company and go out to Saskatchewan for uranium, that doesn’t make much sense, does it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, I don’t know that there are too many mining industries that are going to go to Saskatchewan after the potash business.

Mr. Haggerty: If you look at the comments in your leadoff statement, why --

Mr. Martel: Blakeney wants them.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I don’t think Blakeney can afford them.

Regarding regeneration, the member made some very lengthy comments about our forestry programme. Again, I would say to him that if he looks at my opening statement I think he’ll find many of the answers he is looking for. I am particularly pleased and proud of the regeneration programme that we have in place today, and I can assure him that from my own point of view I am fighting desperately, with the shortage of dollars and the budget constraints that are being applied to the various ministries today, to keep that programme in place -- because I can see the needs and the demands of the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller), the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells), the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. J. A. Taylor), the dollars that they need today. And here I find myself asking for dollars to plant trees today that will not reap any economic benefit for 50 or 60 years. It’s a difficult task, but I have to say again that my colleagues are very sensitive to the needs of the north and as it relates to the forest industry.

An hon. member: Who’s he kidding?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You mentioned the situation as it relates to Grassy Narrows and Whitedog, and certainly I would be remiss if I didn’t comment briefly on it, not only from the ministry’s point of view but being the local member of that particular area I am particularly concerned as it relates to the health of not only the native peoples but the entire population that is living close to the mercury-polluted waters of the Wabigoon and English river systems. I think the first step we had to take was to stop the pollution of that particular system. That has been done. Today there is no mercury chlor-alkaline plant at Dryden; it’s completely changed over. There’s no more fear that that will be accelerated or even extended.

The second step we had to take was to do a very careful close check on the health of the native peoples. That has been done and it’s an ongoing thing in co-operation with the federal government. Of course, the third thing is the socio-economic problems related to both of those reserves. There is a problem here with constitutionality. Primarily, the reserves themselves are federal jurisdiction. We’ve gone beyond. I think it’s fair to say the province stepped in where constitutionally we didn’t have the right, such as sending up freezers and making sure that they would have an alternate source of uncontaminated protein. We did that at a cost of about $140,000 just to put up the freezers. Next year we’ve budgeted $100,000 just to make sure that there is protein made available in those particular freezers. We’ve replaced that lost source of food on a very regular basis.

As you know, the federal government suggested just last week that if the situation from the native peoples’ point of view is so serious they would seriously consider relocating those reserves off the polluted waters. That was turned down flat. I had the opportunity of speaking to the minister just as late as yesterday, and he tells me that that offer still stands. He said, “There may be some that will want to move. We’ll pay their costs and we’ll assist them in every way we can.” But I know those people personally, they have been moved once already because of the flooding, the Hydro developments, and I accept that they want to stay where they are. This is their home, and you’ve got to know those people to realize that.

The steps that we’ve been taking are maybe not as much on a long-term basis, but we’ve been doing short-term things, such as providing job opportunities where we can as it relates to my ministry. In our silviculture programmes, of course, we hire as many natives as we can. In forest-fire fighting they’re the best forest-fire fighters that we have in the Province of Ontario, our native peoples. We recognize that and the bulk of our force is made up of native peoples.

Tree planting is another area where we use a number of native peoples. We’ve used them in all those places, even in the testing programmes where we go out and test a number of lakes for mercury contamination, outside of the English and the Wabigoon river system, we use native people. Just last week -- the member from Nipigon will be interested in this -- we found a number of smaller lakes in the Ignace area that have a high level of mercury contamination in the fish of those particular lakes. There is no industry around at all. There is no industry leading into those particular lakes. That is giving us some concern. Lac Seul, the lake that I live on personally, is contaminated by natural mercury. There’s a large Indian reserve there, and I recently asked that they be tested to see if there was any health damage to those particular people. So we are moving ahead.

I want to just mention one thing we hear so much about as it relates to the Ministry of Natural Resources in regard to our particular jurisdiction -- that is guaranteeing that their trapping rights are protected. We do that, and we’ve been concentrating on that particular area. But I have to say I’m disappointed that in the last two or three years they’ve only been trapping 50 per cent of their potential. It’s very discouraging to me for people to be oriented in that way and not capitalizing on that potential and that possibility.

We’ve given them timberlands; the staff did a brief review and they tell me that over the last five years they’ve been cutting only 21 per cent of their allowable cut. So there is a responsibility on the chief and the councils to assist us in getting those programmes off the ground. I accept the fact that it’s going to take time, it’s going to take patience and it’s going to take understanding, and we’re prepared to do those.

Hon. members will be interested to know that we forgave the loans under the Fisheries Loans Act as it relates to Lake St. Clair and the English and Wabigoon river system. Many people said to me that the commercial fishing industry in that particular area of northwestern Ontario was a big industry, it meant a lot; it was a big thing. In fact, one news reporter told me it was a $300,000-a- year industry. Well, it wasn’t anywhere near that, because in the 2½-year period that we gave loans to those commercial fishermen, which were for 70 per cent of the average of the three previous years, we only wrote off $57,000. So commercial fishing wasn’t a great financial thing to the Indian people, but it was a big source of food. We recognize that.

Very recently I had the pleasure of going up to Kenora with my colleagues, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) and the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller), and we met the two chiefs and the president of Treaty No. 3. We reviewed a number of requests that they had made. We also indicated that we would be establishing a provincial co-ordinator in Kenora to deal specifically with those two particular reserves on an emergency basis, to provide some socio-economic stimulus in the short term and to try to work out something in co-operation with the federal government on a long-term basis.

To listen to the media or to read the media, you’d think that the demands and the needs of those particular two reserves were not being heard. This is not true, because they are getting attention; they are getting funds and they’ll continue to get more -- along with some direction. As the chief from Whitedog told me, “It’s great to give us these programmes but you must realize I have to do all the clerical work myself; I just can’t handle it. I have to have somebody to give me a hand to make application, to give us some guidance and some leadership as it goes into the white man’s society.” So these are areas we are looking into.

I might say that the negotiations regarding the Ontario Northland-DREE agreement are progressing -- I think the member for Erie mentioned this. They are moving ahead, and I’m told we can expect the agreement to be finalized in the not too distant future. They will again provide us with some federal dollars, 50-cent dollars, but nevertheless they will give us a little bit of additional funding to assist in meeting the needs of the people who live in the far-flung reaches of the province.

The question of moving the Ministry of Natural Resources to northern Ontario is a matter that came through to me loud and clear, particularly during the last election campaign. I had to point out and --

Mr. Haggerty: I’ve heard mentions of Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, New Liskeard and Fort William.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have to admit that was a gimmick; really, that’s what it was. Because in my ministry, 75 per cent of my staff now are outside of the Metropolitan Toronto area, working in the field. We went through a reorganization -- we went from four regions to eight regions and from 21 districts to 49 districts -- to take our programmes out to the people and to give the public better service. For the first time, we established in Thunder Bay an assistant deputy minister who has the same power as a deputy minister. So we have a strong image. But to say to me, a northerner, that I should be established, say, in Sault Ste. Marie, Geraldton, Kenora or somewhere --

Mr. Ferrier: What about Armstrong?

Mr. Martel: Or Wawa?

[9:00]

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- I think would be doing a disservice to the people of northern Ontario, because we need an extra voice here.

You know, we have only got 15 in northern Ontario. We should have 25 and then for the Liberal party to come along and say: “Take them out and put them out there in Wawa or some place, and keep them up there” -- we have got to be here, we have got to be here to get our fair share. And I am sure that the member from Nipigon would agree with me.

The only way we can get our fair share for our particular area, for the north, is to be here and to make sure that we are heard loud and clear, so I just can’t accept that argument. I don’t see the federal government putting the Ministry of Fisheries in Newfoundland, or in BC. I don’t see the federal government putting the Ministry of Agriculture in western Canada. You have got to be where the action is. You have got to be where the bucks are, and make sure that you get your fair share.

Mr. Haggerty: I don’t know if there is any action over there, though.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There’s action here and I would strongly recommend as a northerner that that’s one particular plank, if we go into an election in the not too distant future, that the Liberal Party would be wise to remove from their platform, really. They would be doing the north a service and their own party a real good service, because it just doesn’t go over in the north. It is just something that is not accepted. That’s the end of my remarks.

Mr. Ferrier: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is understood, and I think the hon. member for Erie and I think the minister will agree to this, that we consider all the votes together and that speakers from at least the Liberal and the NDP groups limit themselves to between 15 and 20 minutes so that we can make the best use of the time available. If the minister agrees, I think that’s the consensus that we can work on.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I gather you are going to go through all aspects of the estimates?

Mr. Chairman: Is that agreeable with the committee?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: It is agreed we will limit the remarks or the debate between the minister and the various members of the committee to 15 to 20 minutes each.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, the minister started off today by deliberately -- I shouldn’t say deliberately -- he misled the House. And I can’t pass up this opportunity to correct the minister.

In his opening statement, he makes the following point. One of the changes has been labour’s growing awareness of health and safety measures, and the minister knows full well that it’s his own legislation which even until this time prevents labour from really being involved in health and safety of the miners. The minister knows full well that under the section of the Mining Act, the sole prerogative for safety programmes in the mines is left to the company. If you want to spank the industry, Mr. Minister, I suggest you not include labour, because they have had no part in the health-and-safety programme. What they have gained, they have gained through the collective bargaining process and have had to fight like mad to get it despite the wishes of this government. I think that it was unfair of you to put that statement in.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I must respond to that.

Mr. Martel: You will have your day in court. I want to make three or four very quick points and then get to what I want to talk about in the few minutes that I have. There are three main recommendations on the select committee pertaining to land that I would ask the minister to consider. The first one he mentioned partly this afternoon in dealing with Crown land for recreational purposes. The select committee, as I am sure the minister is aware, recommended in its final report that Crown land be leased to Canadians and landed immigrants and no one else. And I would urge the minister to take a look if he hasn’t at the select committee’s report on which two of his cabinet colleagues sat, and that they take that recommendation into consideration and implement it as quickly as possible. There have been some test cases as I understand it in other jurisdictions which would give us the authority to do that.

Secondly, I would ask the minister, again based on the select committee report, to consider the reclaiming of the surface rights of all of the mineral rights that are held in the province and let me explain that quickly. Many of the mining companies hold great tracts of land for which they don’t want surface rights -- pardon me, I said mineral rights. They don’t need the surface rights. They need the mineral rights which invariably are below the surface and sorely in my own area we should not be allowing mining companies to tie up 200, 300, 400, 1,000 acres, most of which they don’t need the surface rights for. Surely in this day and age we should be saying to the mining companies, “You have a right to the mineral rights, but the surface rights return to the Crown so that we can utilize those for a variety of programmes that we want for our citizens.”

I know that in the Sudbury area it’s even difficult for some of the municipalities to get a dump site, because a mining company has the land tied up totally. I don’t think they need the surface rights unless, of course, pit mining is involved. If you’re talking about pit mining, that’s vastly different. But if you’re talking about underground mining, I don’t think they need the rights.

The select committee two years ago recommended that we reclaim most of that particularly in view of the tax pittance that we get for tying up all that land. What is it now -- a dollar an acre per year? I think it’s ridiculous that they have those surface rights. They don’t need them anyway.

The same thing applies with the pulp and paper industry, although somewhat more difficult. I understand that position. It is somewhat more difficult in that the roads are paid for by the industry; but there are large tracts of land that they’re not using that we could make multi-use of.

I think it’s time that the government took a look at the select committee’s reports on those three things and came up with some legislation which would see multi-use wherever possible. If the land isn’t needed by the mining industry, the surface rights should be returned to the Crown; and the other one concerns who has a right to the land.

I’m going to go through these quickly. About four years ago, the ministry staff prepared a report on the degree of foreign ownership in the Ontario wood-using industry. I understand it was to be renewed every year. Could the minister make available to us the latest review? In the 1970 review it indicated that we were falling behind and there was more foreign domination -- and it was growing. I’d simply like to be assured that that trend has stopped and maybe the last report has been finalized.

I want to deal primarily with three aspects of health and safety as they pertain to the mining industry. I want to deal first with silicosis in my own area. For years we’ve been told that there’s no silicosis in the mining industry in the Sudbury area -- or very little. I believed that. Nothing showed up for the longest time.

However, I have before me from the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union, eight silicosis cases which have been established in the last little while and 15 which are presently being considered for some type of ailment for chest problems coming out of the mining industry in the Sudbury area. This deals with Falconbridge alone.

There are two aspects of it. If we’ve been told that there’s very little silica dust, why have about eight claims been established of late? One of them I worked on only about a year ago, for a man by the name of Lawrence Henry. The other 15 have a variety of ailments dealing with the chest.

In the 14 or 15 cases which haven’t been accepted for silicosis, the Workmen’s Compensation Board is now saying it’s pneumoconiosis. Many of the men involved worked for three or four years in the coal fields in Belgium after the war. Many of them are immigrants who came to the Sudbury area, having spent four or five years in the Belgian coal mines. The Workmen’s Compensation Board is simply taking the easy way out. The WCB is saying it is pneumoconiosis because of the exposure to the coal dust for four or five years.

I wrote the United Mine Workers union, who’ve done probably more work in this field than any other group, because they have so many coal mines in the United States, and they tell me that it takes approximately 15 years of exposure to get pneumoconiosis.

I find it strange that the Workmen’s Compensation Board in Ontario, with the four or five cases I have before me -- information which I can give to the minister -- attributes it to pneumoconiosis with only four or five years of exposure, when the mining unions in the United States say that it takes roughly 15 years of exposure to develop pneumoconiosis.

I think the Workmen’s Compensation Board is taking the easy way out. They don’t want to blame the mining industry in the Sudbury area, and are saying that it’s the Belgian coal mines. That to me is the easy way out, because the statistics that I have indicate that that isn’t the case. It isn’t a four-year or five- year exposure, it takes 15 years. I think that has to be looked at.

I also have a number of cases from the United Steelworkers and they also have a growing concern that there is more silicosis in the Sudbury area than we’ve been led to believe over the past little while. I have four cases from the United Steelworkers; they haven’t even gone through all their files.

It is disturbing because we have been told all along that there is no silica dust in the type of minerals that are in the Sudbury area. There are just too many cases of late which destroy that theory that there is no silica dust there. I have the cases from the Steelworkers; I have the names from the mine workers. I think it has to be investigated to determine if that’s occurring, before it is too late. If it is occurring, let’s get the ventilation improved to ensure that it doesn’t continue. But based on what’s gone before, there are just too many cases coming up now and it really bothers me.

There was a study commissioned in 1973 to study the chest ailments in the Sudbury area. To my knowledge, to this date, that report has not been finalized. Part of the reason I am told is that Dr. Joe Cowle, who was involved in the study, passed away last spring. Surely, after two or three years that report should now be ready. I understand other problems interfered with it -- the silicosis problems that came out of the Elliot Lake area might have slowed it down, but I would like to know if that report is ready.

I want to deal with two other problems. One is Elliot Lake, again for a few moments. The union contacted me. There are several things I want to talk about. The allowing of your mining engineers to grant Denison or Rio Algom permits for overtime. I don’t think it should rest with the engineers -- I am sorry. I think it should come either directly to the minister or the deputy minister. The reason I say that is that I don’t know what the back record of most of those men are, and neither does Denison and neither does Rio Algom, in the accumulative number of work level months of exposure.

I think, and the union is in full agreement, if there is a real emergency the union would be the first to say yes. But, when there is a scoop tram broken down -- it gets that ridiculous -- they request special permission for additional overtime. I don’t think that you should pass that off to your mining inspectors to make that decision. That should come here and the reason for overtime should be emergency in the true sense. I don’t think the unions will object; I know they won’t, but what’s going on is ridiculous.

The second point I want to make -- and I would like an answer -- is the way you are establishing work level months. You are establishing work level months simply, as I understand it, as a gimmick which will prove that most of the men have not been overexposed. As I understand it, you are simply taking, for your reports, the total work force divided into the number of hours of work, and coming up with the final figure as being the work level exposure.

That’s nonsense, that’s total and absolute nonsense. As I understand it, you are not taking into consideration the number of hours that people are away; you are not taking sickness into consideration; you are not taking the number of people on the work force and dividing it into the hours worked. I venture to say here tonight that using that formula you won’t find 10 men who are overexposed. You are deceiving everyone by doing it if that’s the case. If that’s the way you’re doing it I would beg you to start all over again. I would ask that you look at each man’s record individually, taking from him what he considers he has worked and not strictly what the company is going to present to you. It’s just too dangerous to play that kind of game. I’d like to know if that’s the formula you’re using to consider the work level months.

[9:15]

I’m also told that the ministry doesn’t intend to give its final findings on work level months to other than Denison and Rio Algom and to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The unions have been advised they will not receive that information. I’m told Rio Algom is willing to pass it on. Surely to God, the minister would give that information directly to the union involved? The lives of those men are too important to give that material simply to the Workmen’s Compensation Board and to the two corporations. Surely, you must pass that information on to the union at the same time as the government gives it to the two companies involved.

Mr. Chairman: I would draw to the hon. member’s attention he has used 14 minutes and 10 seconds.

Mr. Martel: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. The other point I want to turn to only briefly. I’m working within a time limit by the way. They told me I have five minutes grace but they didn’t tell me ahead of time so you’ll notice I’m going very quickly.

I want to turn to industrial deafness now for only a few moments. This is a file I’ve been gathering for the past year; that’s all one year just on industrial deafness. The situation is critical and I can’t get the government to move.

A year ago, when the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) made his statement on the silicosis problem at Elliot Lake, the minister deliberately left off the last point in his statement which he had prepared, and that dealt with industrial deafness. He did not present it to the Legislature. I tell you now that some of the medical people I know in Sudbury are conducting tests at the request of the Workmen’s Compensation Board until the end of April and have recently been asked to conduct 300 more.

We have the highest incidence of industrial deafness and the most severe industrial deafness in northern Ontario. Fifty per cent of the industrial deafness cases are coming from the north, from the pulp and paper industry and from the mining industry. Surely, with less than one-seventh of the population in northern Ontario, we should not have 50 per cent of the industrial deaf cases and we shouldn’t have the most severe. I’m told we have both; the most severe and 50 per cent.

I have been after the government to introduce some type of programme by which it can do the actual testing because industrial deafness is insidious. The man is the last person to know he is going deaf. He’s deaf; no one tells him. He takes all of these tests and I hope the minister is sincere when he says from here on in the men will get the medical information. There should be an annual test, at the very minimum, for deafness.

At the first sign of industrial deafness the man should be advised because it’s at that point he makes the determination to stay on the job or get out. If he stays on the job he’s doomed to go on to be totally deaf and he gets the magnificent sum of 30 per cent for total deafness -- 30 per cent of 75 per cent. He’s isolated from his family; cut off. Not only that, I’m told by the experts in the field that the effects of industrial deafness on the nervous system lead to serious heart conditions and a whole host of other problems.

I’m asking you to use your influence on the Workmen’s Compensation Board to establish in northern Ontario a testing programme; experimentation to determine what are the side effects of all the exposure, as well as the deafness; the other side effects; the other medical side effects. I’m asking that this be done and done immediately because in the year and a half I’ve pleaded this issue nothing of any significance really has occurred in that field.

If we’ve got 50 per cent of the total deafness coming from the pulp and paper industry and from the mining industry -- over both of which you have tremendous control -- surely we must move in with the types of programmes which will ensure that industrial deafness will be eliminated. I’m told there should not be one person who suffers from industrial deafness; it can all be overcome if we simply set about to do it. In the year and a half I’ve raised this issue nothing has happened, and I would ask for some answers to these issues. I realize I am dealing with them quickly, but I wanted to get those three very important areas in.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to relate to the initial remarks of the hon. member when he questioned my comments about labour becoming more involved.

Even in my brief time in this ministry, I heard it from union leaders that they are pleased that today they have the expertise within their organization to become involved in the health and safety of mines. And we accept that. I think it is fair to say in some areas they have experts far better then what we have, and in some areas even better than the industry. So more credit to them. What I am saying is that it is a new awareness. Great. It’s happened over the last five or 10 years and we welcome it. I must make that point very clear.

The select committee on foreign ownership, as I mentioned earlier, is something that we did look at when we changed our criteria as they relate to summer cottage lots, but they are certainly something that we will be looking at on a continuing basis.

Your comments with regard to surface rights: It’s something that I have to agree with you because I have a similar problem in my own particular area of northwestern Ontario. At the present time, of course, these lands are patented lands. They pay taxes, or they pay an acreage tax. And it may be if we go the route of obtaining that for the public then we have to expropriate or purchase them, I don’t know.

I am not totally satisfied that the way the structure is set now for a mining company that owns, as in Red Lake -- 30 mining claims are held there, and they own the surface rights. They are throttling development. You can’t buy the land.

The prices -- they are holding you to ransom, really, and the town is having extreme difficulties because it can’t negotiate with the mining companies. I have asked the committee looking at the Mining Act to look at this particular aspect. There may be some way, or somewhere, that we can work something into the Act, as we amend the Act, whereby they do hold large surface areas, particularly in the urban areas where there is a need in the adjacent municipality, or in that particular municipality.

I’m not worried about away out in the boondocks or the lower James Bay basin, but when it comes in the middle of a community or adjacent to the community I don’t think that they should control the surface rights. And we don’t give them the surface rights now under the new system. They don’t get the surface rights. Mineral rights, yes -- no question. If they are looking for minerals and they think there is some value and some potential there, and they are willing to pay us for that, then fine and dandy.

But on the surface rights I have to agree with you 100 per cent, and I hope that the mining committee will come up with some suggestions because I tell you I just won’t rest until we find an answer to that particular problem.

You asked for a review on foreign ownership of the forest industry -- we’ll pull that together and make sure you get a copy of it.

Silicosis in the Sudbury area -- as I mentioned to you some time ago I was advised that it was developing to the particular degree to which you say. Obviously the problem is a Workmen’s Compensation problem, or one of health. We have been doing surveys and studies in the Inco setup. In fact, I will just read you a comment that the staff has just given me. It says that the Inca underground operations, a screening survey was started to locate and define problem areas. The total environmental survey made use of two personal dust samplers, plus the GCA; direct-reading grammometric sampler.

In addition to this, the underground team also carried noise meters for measuring noise levels, dust sampling equipment, wet and dry bulb thermometers to check heat stress, and also gas-testing instrumentation for gases such as oxides and nitrogen, ammonia, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and oxygen. At surface operations they use a high-volume sampler to get total dust and to measure for silica. They completed noise surveys at oil operations on the surface and all areas with noise levels in excess of 90 db(a). They are now designated as such, and the use of hearing protection is mandatory. So that we are moving into the noise aspect and, of course, checking all the time for silica dust.

I’ll certainly bring it to the attention of the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson). If you want to give me the information you have gathered I will make sure that she gets it, because I know that she will be interested. At least I certainly don’t want to be around if there is another occurrence similar to what happened in Elliot Lake. No way! We will be most pleased to get the information you have and we want it as quickly as possible.

In regard to the chest studies in Sudbury: The Ministry of Health would have that chest survey. We can check with them too and make sure that it’s moving or get you a copy.

In connection with the overtime permits: You suggested that that be funneled down here to Queen’s Park, to my own particular office. I really can’t accept that. I think we have expertise. We have the experts, the most knowledgeable people in my ministry as it relates to mine safety, now located in Sudbury. They have the knowledge. They are highly qualified and I think there is a certain element of time involved here.

They have all the information available right at Sudbury and I have every confidence in the people we have there to make that decision. But, if there are certain abuses, it may be something that we should be looking at. Because if there are abuses by the companies in demanding these permits for --

Mr. Martel: Ridiculous. It is the demands they make, some of them are so ridiculous.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We will certainly follow that up. That’s a comment that we will really put a watch on.

The connection with the radiation: That’s very complex. How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: I think you just ran out.

Mr. Bullbrook: Twenty minutes, it’s supposed to be.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Twenty minutes? Well, the working level months is something that we discussed at great length with the group that was down from the United Steelworkers just the other day. I think there were three or four ministers at that particular meeting. That was, I think, a very fruitful discussion and it is my understanding that further discussions are going to be taking place with the mine management, union leaders and my staff in attendance. Some of the problems to which you related we heard at that particular meeting and some of these accusations. They will be completely followed through.

Mr. Bullbrook: I can assure you I want you to stop me when I have got to the five minutes, because I don’t want to take issue with the ministry. As a matter of fact, I think I want to congratulate the hon. minister in this respect, that he obviously has been really training his conservation officers. I wish he were in the Attorney General’s seat or the Solicitor General’s seat. CID could use the investigative talents of your conservation officers. Let me read you from the Sarnia Observer of last week:

“A Ministry of Natural Resources conservation officer Tuesday specifically named coloured boys, Italians and females as being a large part of groups of non-resident hunters causing problems in Moore township. Dale Gartley said by the term ‘non resident’ he means non-resident of Ontario. He told Moore township council that Michigan residents come over here hunting mainly for squirrel and raccoon. He said most of those hunters are the coloured boys, really. They come over for the meat, not the pelt, he said. The pelt is worth about $20 and is sought by experienced hunters as something of value.

“We are not even going to warn these females any more. We used to warn them but they are flagrantly disobeying the law. If all the Italians --”

I must say I imagine he says “I”talians I would think -- as in “eye.” I don’t know Dale. I imagine he is one of Lorne’s appointees.

“If all the Italians in Windsor cannot get away, they send their friends to get township hunting licences for them.”

Mr. Mancini: Isn’t that awful?

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to say this to you: There is a combination of Hercule Poirot and Sherlock Holmes. Can you imagine looking at a squirrel -- a dead squirrel carcass -- and saying, “I know that was killed by a coloured guy”; or looking at a coon skin and saying, “An Italian got him”?

Mr. Shore: Or a woman.

[9:30]

Mr. Bullbrook: You know, if he killed a frog, you’d wonder if he said, “Maybe a frog got him.”

I just wanted to bring to your attention the calibre of people in our area. The dispensation of patronage and largesse leads to almost a Tennessee-like atmosphere. You remember that movie “In the Heat of the Night” with Rod Steiner? This guy Dale Gartley makes that look like Heidi. Perhaps you’d like to look into this fellow, whoever he is Goodness gracious, how disgusting can we be?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Just to comment briefly on the member’s final few words. We’ll certainly look into those comments because they’re not supported by myself or I think anyone in the senior staff. I just want to point out to you that --

Mr. Bullbrook: I know they are not. But you know how you get those people there? Because of the way you make your appointments.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Wait a minute. That’s the point I want to get on.

Mr. Bullbrook: That is the way it is.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There has never been a political appointment as a conservation officer. Let’s get that straight.

Mr. Shore: How about the liquor stores?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I have nothing to do with liquor stores. You’d better ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman). Our conservation officers are highly trained and carefully selected individuals to do a job.

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, yes.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They have a very difficult job. They’ve got to apply the Fish and Game Act and we hand-pick them, not for their political affiliation or anything else. I want to make that point. And Lorne Henderson has never made any recommendations to me.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am going to send that now to the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson). Right now. I am going to send it to the Minister of Labour right now.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be very brief because of the time constraints, I didn’t want to pass up the opportunity to say something about a ministry that I’ve been keenly interested in over the last eight years. While I’m not going to be partisan in my comments, I think some of the things that the minister mentioned in his opening remarks are subject to challenge or at least clarification.

He did mention in his wide-ranging remarks that his ministry and the fish and wildlife branch were doing all in their power to manage wisely our fish and wildlife resources. He did make a definite commitment about a year ago to allocate $400,000 for moose management. We know the financial constraints that all ministries are under but I think that it is incumbent upon the minister from time to time to explain to members of this House that are keenly interested in all aspects of his ministry as to why he can’t keep commitments. We know he hasn’t kept the commitment with regard to moose management and the allocation of funds.

All too often when we’re dealing with resources, whether they be renewable or non-renewable, the decisions are taken for sociopolitical reasons rather than for technical reasons. I think that whenever it’s impossible for the minister to live up to a commitment that he’s already made, it’s incumbent upon him to give us an explanation. We don’t have to wait for the estimates. I think the House has a responsibility to monitor what goes on in all ministries on an on-going basis and this one is no exception.

He did mention that he had been able to enlist the services of 25 conservation officers, according to his statement on page 41. We know that he hasn’t got 25 new conservation officers in the field, whether they be working part-time in the parks branch or whether they be out enforcing the fish and game laws of the province. I know and the minister knows, that he hasn’t got 25 new conservation officers in the field. I know there are four vacancies that were created just since the minister made that announcement that haven’t been advertised let alone filled. I think it’s incumbent upon the minister to come clean and say we haven’t met our commitment. I’m sure there are very valid and logical reasons why he hasn’t met his commitment and I think we’re entitled to know.

The one final area that I want to get into is a commitment made by the minister in 1972, reiterated in 1973 and 1974, concerning reforestation and the silviculture and regeneration programme. I think it is quite obvious that in my conversations with people within the ministry, with people in the industry and with people in the academic world, in the forestry schools, if they are honest at all, they will tell you that we have been mining the forest for far too long and that we can no longer go on paying no regard or heed to the need to regenerate our forest.

It was quite all right when we were only harvesting up to 35 to 40 per cent of our forestry resources. Since we are now getting close to 90 per cent with all of the increased capacity that is on stream, or soon to come on stream, we obviously know that we haven’t got the kind of leeway we once had. When the minister trots out the figures that are included in his opening remarks, where he says we have exceeded our target of 150,000 or 160,000 acres tended in 1974-1975, I want to remind the minister that in 1974 we harvested over 400,000 acres. It is his target by the year 1982-1983 to tend and to practise intensive and extensive silvicultural and regeneration practices on something like 290,000 acres. I want to remind him that by those years we could be up to a figure of 600,000 acres that we will be harvesting.

If you are going to allow the prime users to high-grade close to the mills for economic reasons, it’s quite obvious that a lot of the areas that should be harvested now will be overmature; the degree of decadence in those areas will be just so great that it won’t even be worth their while going into them at all. Using the $8 million that the minister referred to through NORT funds, I think that where it can be justified you are going to have to assist the industry to get into areas much farther away from the mill so that they will cease and desist from the high-grading that they are used to doing close to the mill for economic reasons. I don’t think we can allow that to happen any more.

We have to husband those resources. We have to manage them, in much the same way as the minister referred to, as a crop, an agricultural crop. There isn’t a farmer anyplace who is worth his salt who says we will only harvest 50 per cent of a grain field, a corn field or any kind of agricultural crop. We’ve got so little leeway in the forest industry now, with the volumes of timber that have already been committed and spoken for, that you are going to have to manage those resources in a much more realistic way.

I realize the financial constraints that all ministries, including this one, are under. But I think it’s a case that we just can’t afford not to do the things that we all agree must be done. So when the minister speaks of a target of 296,000 acres by the year 1982-1983, I don’t think it’s enough and I am sure there are a good many people in the industry and a good many people within your ministry who think it’s not enough. If you want some assistance going before Management Board to justify greater expenditure of funds in this area, that’s what must be done.

I think the minister is on the right track. I won’t say that it is too little, too late, but we just don’t have much lead time and I think that we need additional funds to meet the targets that you and I know are staring us in the face. I don’t think we’ve got 20 or 30 years; I think we must start right now.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond briefly. In connection with the moose management budget of last year, we indicated at that particular time it would be around $400,000 and, as the member correctly points out, because of budgetary constraints and cutbacks we were cut back to $126,000. This did get the moose management off the ground.

We established the basis for further management this year. I’m not going to indicate what we’ve got in the budget next year in case something happens between now and then. You learn from experience, I guess; I was so enthusiastic about the acceptance by my colleagues. I can assure you that it’s something we have in the budget for next year but I just don’t want to mention the amount at the present time. This is for the 1976-1977 year.

I’m looking forward to the results of our studies this year, the first year of operation. I think they are going to be very interesting because we’ve gone to smaller management units. We have four regional moose biologists now stationed in the four regions of northern Ontario which we never had before. We’ve got that in place and it’s moving ahead.

In connection with the COs, I mentioned we had been given permission to increase our staff which will result in an increase of 25 conservation officers by the end of this fiscal year which is March 31, 1976. We have 16 more conservation officers than we had at this time last year. We have applications; we have openings for nine more.

Getting back to the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook), one of the reasons we are slow in picking up this extra staff is the quality and the calibre of the individuals we’re looking for to be conservation officers. We’re not taking the middle of the run or, as the member pointed out, political hacks. We’re not interested. We want good people who want to make a career in this particular field, in resource management and enforcement of the Game and Fish Act. We are moving ahead and we will have the full complement in place by the end of March next year.

Mr. Martel: What about Havrot?

Mr. Laughren: What about Havrot?

Mr. Martel: Havrot would make a good conservation officer for you.

Mr. Reed: It is a privilege to be able to address this ministry inasmuch as the particular situation in my riding, which is located near a large metropolitan area and is directly affected by the Ministry of Natural Resources, is nonetheless affected in a very different way from the bulk of this great province.

Most of the authority of the ministry is authority over private freehold land, private property, and I would like to address that situation for just a moment. We are finding that the owners of private property who are affected by the Ministry of Natural Resources have come under increasing levels of regulation in recent years.

We realize that the regulation is made with the very best of intent because in each case the ministry is trying to achieve something in particular. But we’re finding that very little regard is being paid to the integrity and the conscience of the individual landowners who come under your jurisdiction.

I’ll use only one brief example for the sake of saving time and that is on the regulations imposed by the conservation authorities. I think you should be aware that those regulations are so strictly enforced that in conservation-administered valleys and rivers in my riding a farmer can’t even put in a fencepost without a permit from the conservation authority. I would like to ask your ministry to look very seriously at the kinds of regulations you impose upon private landowners with some kind of thought being given to the fact that they are responsible citizens, too.

For a point of clarification, I expect that operation SWEEP comes under your particular jurisdiction. Is that correct, sir?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes.

[9:45]

Mr. Reed: I would, in passing, like to mention this organization and commend your ministry for setting up SWEEP. I do feel it has been a very effective thing in our area where we have a lot of refuse that’s dumped into rivers and down banks and so on. I can say from personal experience that they were a very conscientious group of young people who worked hard and earned all their money.

One thing that I had some reservations about was the fact that in the particular case to which I’m referring the young people connected with SWEEP came in and cleaned out an area of the Credit River. In the space of half a mile, they removed 100 automobile and truck tires. It took them four days to get them out. I asked the foreman of the project if they knew where the tires had come from. It was indicated to me that they did know where they had come from. I said, “Can this be prosecuted?” They had gone to the conservation authority and asked them and were advised that the kind of teeth that were in the law were not strong enough to effect a conviction. I would say in this regard that I would like the ministry to give some consideration to the kind of laws that are applied to this type of pollution.

Your ministry is responsible for water control and engineering. For your information it is of rather great concern to me that in some areas your engineering staffs are advocating types of water management in terms of flood control and so on that really are not suitable to the given rivers. I will refer specifically to a programme of channelization which is being advocated on the Credit River which runs through my riding. Coupled with that is the advocating of the removal of the existing dams. In this particular area, this land is being paved over very rapidly. What we have is a watershed that is shedding its water far more quickly than in the past.

We know that the programme of channelization simply encourages the collection of ice. What we’re getting with the removal of the dams and the channelization are ice jams that we’ve never had before. When the ice jam breaks sometimes the water will rise 6 ft in half an hour. I submit to you that this situation will become more and more acute as the watershed is paved over to a greater extent.

The ministry has made a statement about the necessity to encourage the use of renewable resources in terms of the forest industry. May I suggest to you that there is another area of renewable resource which your same ministry is discouraging and that is the private utilization of small water powers in Ontario. It’s too bad that the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell), the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) weren’t sitting there beside you so that you could put your heads together.

We have had a little bit of experience in this regard, and have discovered that your ministry with its present approach to conservation seems to consider that the damming of rivers in however small a way is not a positive thing. We would submit in this age of increasing demand for energy resources that you give some consideration to changing your stance from one of discouragement to one of encouragement for these small developments. I have spoken with the Minister of Energy on this subject and his reaction has not been negative in the least. I would now present you with the same proposition that perhaps your ministry could now take a changed and more realistic position when it comes to the utilization of this non-polluting and renewable resource.

I would also like to point out to the minister that it has been brought to my attention that recently aggregates which are mined in Ontario have been exported out of the country to a certain extent and I am not sure how large it is to this time. I am in the midst of trying to determine just what the degree of export has been and whether it is continuing at this time, but the information given to me is that the export either has been or is taking place from the area of the Niagara Escarpment.

Finally, I would ask the minister if he would direct his people in the field to recognize that those private landowners who come under his jurisdiction are responsible individuals and were very often practising conservation in the truest sense, sometimes for generations, before governments became involved in the necessary practice of preserving our environment and our resources. It’s particularly critical in my riding and I know it’s only a small portion of the large area the minister has to contend with.

I thank you very much for listening to me at this time.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, to comment briefly, I am sorry I didn’t bring it to the attention of the House when you were speaking, but an area with which you have been particularly concerned has been the land problem of the Big Trout Lake Indian band. I think you are aware that the order in council has been passed by the Lieutenant Governor, whereby additional lands would be given to the Big Trout Lake Indian reserve to meet the economic and social needs of that particular band.

I think we made it clear in the order in council, as will the federal government in its order, I hope, that this is not necessarily an opening up of the treaty. It should not be considered a precedent because other areas will have similar problems and we don’t want to be involved in that particular problem which brings in the federal government.

The problems as they relate to Sachigo, Bearskin, Rat Dam, Wonaman, Kasabonika, Anglin and Kingfisher have now been resolved. Hopefully, we will see a whole new form of municipal or reserve government spring up and a new chief on each one of them. I am sure the chairman and I will be in that area to congratulate those who have been elected by their respective communities.

It’s indeed a pleasure for me to have been involved; there were long, complex, tedious discussions not only with the native people but with the federal government. Now that they are resolved we can go on to other areas which have similar problems.

In answer to the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Reed), I am very much aware of the landfill regulations and the problems they are imposing -- at least the conservation authorities are. Maybe problem is not the correct word because they are doing their job in protecting the public at large and controlling development in the flood plain areas. We are moving into a very broad mapping programme for the flood plains to see if the criteria we are using today is correct. In some areas we use the hurricane flood and in some areas it is a 25-year flood; in other areas we refer to the 100-year flood or the Timmins flood. This is something that we are going into now to find out if that particular criterion is the one we should be using at this point in time.

It is an area that is high on our priority list and an area that we will be looking at very carefully. But we most respect the tremendous job the conservation authorities have done in the past. They have been given a mandate to protect the public at large and they have done it exceptionally well. I think they have a lot of credit coming their way; but I do recognize the problems you bring forward.

In connection with the SWEEP programme -- that is, Students Working in an Environmental Enhancement Programme -- we have changed the name. We now call it Experience ‘75 and next year it will be Experience ‘76. I appreciate your comments because I share your views of this group of young people who are environmentally aware and environmentally conscious of our outdoors. They have done a tremendous job. I think it is one of the best government programmes we have today -- along with our Junior Ranger programme. Those kind words of congratulations and thanks are sincerely appreciated.

You mentioned the problem of development of small power sites on certain channels. I have not been made aware of any that we have turned down. We have a responsibility, of course, to make sure that the fish habitat is maintained, that water quality is maintained and that flow is maintained. But certainly we would look favourably, if all criteria could be met and no real consequence extended, at the granting of leases for the generation of electrical power. So if you have any specific sites you would like me to look at, I would be only too pleased to hear from you.

There was the question of export of aggregate; we don’t consider this a major problem. In fact, off the top of my head I would estimate, and it is just an estimate, that it is only five to 10 per cent of the total production. In fact in many areas we import a lot of the rip-rap for diking from the United States. So there is an exchange, and in our opinion what is moving over there is certainly not a big item in the overall production of aggregate in the southern part of the province.

Mr. Reed: Are you saying then, Mr. Minister, that there is material coming back in?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Very much so.

Mr. Reed: So there is a transfer back in.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, it goes both ways.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I must say that I am really surprised we are still debating with the same Minister of Natural Resources. I was convinced that when the cabinet shuffle occurred he would become the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. I really mean it, I did not think that this minister would remain in the cabinet in this particular position.

I think the events of the last few years are ample proof that he should not be in that portfolio. With what has happened in the mining industry, with the safety and health problems, and with the return on non-renewable resources, he indeed shouldn’t be sitting in his chair. However, he is there and we will deal with him as best we can.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that those of us in the New Democratic Party feel almost passionately about the subject of non-renewable resources. It is not just ideological thinking either, although that certainly is a part of it. It is the nature of the non-renewable resource industry in this province, and the way the industry is so totally dominated by the multi-nationals. One does not have to have a conspiratorial mind or to be paranoid about multi-nationals to know that the ore bodies and the people -- in the Sudbury basin, for example -- truly are pawns in a multi-national resource game. It is not in the best interests of the people in the area or the people in the Province of Ontario that this be allowed to continue. And lest anyone have any doubts as to the priorities of the people who run Falconbridge, I would recommend to them a book called, “Falconbridge: Portrait of a Canadian Mining Multinational,” written by John Deverell of the Latin American Working Group.

[10:00]

If I could, I would like to read a very brief paragraph that shows the priorities of the people who run Falconbridge, namely Mr. Marsh Cooper, the president. I quote:

“The insider trading report of the Ontario Securities Commission shows that Marsh Cooper purchased 30,000 treasury shares of McIntyre at a stock option cost of $83.25 per share in January, 1970. Seven months later he sold 16,000 shares at a market price of $160 per share -- enough to recapture his original outlay, with $63,000 to spare. The 14,000 shares remaining to him clear and free had a market value of $2.2 million at that time.”

Marsh Cooper’s interests are with Marsh Cooper and certainly not with the workers or the people in the Sudbury basin, let alone the balance of the Province of Ontario.

Part of the problem is the inability of this government, and quite frankly any other government, to tax the resource industry properly. We know, and the minister surely must know, that if taxes are laid on the resource sector, what will happen to the ore bodies. The corporations, by the very fact of their existence, must maximize their profits. If they are maximizing their profits and the taxes are high on their operations, they simply must extract a grade of ore that makes their operation profitable. If that means they bypass the low-grade ores and take out the high-grade ores, who could argue with them? They simply must do it, according to the rules of the free enterprise system.

As well, we know that the resource corporations have extensive developments elsewhere and they are exploring elsewhere. As a matter of fact, at the very time that Falconbridge is laying off in the Sudbury area, they are expanding their operations in Norway and in the Dominican Republic. At the same time that the market analysts are saying there is going to be a six per cent growth in the steel industry and in the nickel industry in the foreseeable future, and at the same time International Nickel is working its men overtime, seven days a week in some cases, Falconbridge is laying off.

So it is not a question of the ore bodies. It’s not a question of Falconbridge’s share of the market when the two of them share 60 per cent of the market between them. It’s a question of what role the Sudbury ore bodies play in Falconbridge’s intentions around the world. As long as they remain in the private sector, that’s the way it is going to be.

When we look around the Sudbury area we see that there hasn’t been the manufacturing going on that should have gone on, considering the amount of resources that are there. I have to say that I am insulted when I see Falconbridge still shipping ore to Norway for refining. Smelting is the dirty part of their job; refining is the clean part. Guess what they do in the Sudbury basin? Smelting only. Surely the time has come when that has got to stop. But no, they are granted exemptions and now they are playing a game of bluff and blackmail; they say profits are down and the minister must reconsider the amount of taxes the resource sector pays.

I would suggest that we’ve had about enough of boom, bust and uncertainty in the Sudbury area. There’s one big reason the regional municipality of Sudbury has reached a maximum on its borrowing capacity according to the ceilings laid down by the Ontario Municipal Board; it’s because, of course, the resource sector never has paid its share of assessment in the Sudbury area. That’s another reason it must change.

At the present time, Falconbridge is in the process of laying off 438 workers in phase one. There is a phase two, we suspect, and that probably will involve about the same number of men again. Yet when we raise it with the Premier (Mr. Davis) and with the Minister of Labour (Hon. B. Stephenson) they use a clause in the Employment Standards Act to say that because the number laid off doesn’t represent 10 per cent of the work force, they don’t even have to give notice to the minister.

Because they just happen to be a large employer, they are allowed to get away with it. That layoff is having an enormous impact on the Sudbury basin, and this government isn’t doing anything about it.

Mr. Warner: They are negligent.

Mr. Laughren: The government will allow that layoff again. There will be phase two of the layoff and you will sit back smugly and say: “That’s the way the free enterprise system works. Let it carry on as it will.”

We asked a couple of weeks ago, when the layoff was announced, that a number of things be done: That the Premier appoint a select committee to look into the layoff and the other intentions of the resource industry in the Sudbury area. I won’t repeat the points that we asked be covered in dealing with the Falconbridge layoff, but I will tell you about the four points we think need to be investigated about the resource sector itself.

No. 1; obtain from lnco and Falconbridge their long term plans for the extraction and processing of ores in the Sudbury area with special emphasis on reserves.

No. 2; investigate the exploration, development and processing plans of Inco and Falconbridge elsewhere in the world. The public has a right to know why Falconbridge is expanding in Norway and the Dominican Republic and laying off workers in Sudbury.

Mr. Martel: The Minister of Labour might be interested, yes.

Mr. Laughren: The market analysts predict an annual growth rate of six per cent of both nickel and steel. Why a Falconbridge layoff at this time?

No. 3; examine the world market demands and supply of nickel and copper to determine market share and the relationship of Inco and Falconbridge in the sharing of markets and the determination of prices.

No. 4; determine the level of stockpiled reserves held by Inco and Falconbridge and the role that stockpiles play in contract negotiations and the pricing of nickel.

As an aside, does the minister really think that was good-faith bargaining that went on between Falconbridge Nickel Mines and the Mine-Mill union; laying off the same week that the contract is settled?

Mr. Warner: He knows it wasn’t.

Mr. Laughren: Finally, to determine the effect of rate of taxation of the resource corporations and the relationship between taxes levied and the extraction of low grade ores.

As the years go by and we see the cavalier attitude of the resource sector again and again, whether it has to do with the economy of the community or whether it has to do with the health and safety of the workers, the inescapable fact keeps coming back to us that there is only one answer for the non-renewable resources in this province and that’s that they be brought under public ownership.

Mr. Martel: It will come.

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps you could tell us, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, just what it is that makes the resource sector untouchable by this minister or any other minister of the Crown. Tell us that it’s not just a free enterprise fixation by this minister. I would like to know what it is.

When I read that statement and the comment in the minister’s opening statement when he indicated, on page 20, that: “Our emphasis cannot be on negative regulation by external agencies.” What an incredible comment that is. Perhaps the minister could indicate to us what the negative regulations are and by what external agencies. It is like Allan Grossman’s face in the crowd, for heaven’s sake. What does he mean, “negative regulations by external agencies”? What a lot of nonsense. Whatever it is, it is unadulterated.

I would like to indicate the kind of contempt I have for a ministry of this type. In 1969, an inspector of this ministry could go into the Reeves mine, which just happens to be an asbestos mine run by Johns-Manville -- if ever there was a corporation with the morals of a clam, it’s the Johns-Manville Co. In 1969 an inspector from this ministry went in there and inspected the mill and the mine and came out with four very specific recommendations, all based on the dust conditions of the mine. I won’t take the time of the House to read them tonight. But again, three years later, the same man -- and this report went to the Ministry of Health -- three years later, in 1972, the same inspector, a Mr. Lockhart whom I just happened to know, went into the mine. In his letter, which went to the chief engineer for Northern Ontario, he says:

“This plant has about a year to go. If we are going to insist on changes, then there should be some uncontestable grounds for doing so.”

That’s after he made the comment that:

“In general, the dust conditions are much worse than found on the previous occasion, three years earlier. The housekeeping throughout the mill and crusher buildings were considered to be extremely poor, especially the fourth floor of the mill building where the dust on the floor was ankle deep.”

Asbestos ankle deep! With the threshold limit value of two fibres per cubic centimetre, a worker can inhale 16 million fibres in an eight hour shift; and the inspector can say that the dust is ankle deep, but if anything is done about it it must be on uncontestable grounds because there is only another year to go in the operation of the mine.

Mr. Chairman, I must tell you that’s the reason I have contempt for this ministry. Let me give you the conclusion of that report:

“No improvement in the dust conditions have been made since my last visit, which was in 1969. In fact, the conditions have become worse.

“There appeared to be no concern among the company’s officials about the deteriorating dust conditions. This was pretty obvious in the poor maintenance of the exhaust systems. It is my feeling that if the condition is allowed to continue it would not he too long before a case of asbestos disease would develop. [Listen to this, Mr. Chairman.] However, there is a big turnover of the employees in the mill building and this may help to limit the individual asbestos exposure.”

Mr. Martel: Imagine that.

Mr. Laughren: And to think that I said that Johns-Manville had the morals of a claim. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to look to your ministry when you have those kinds of statements coming from the inspectors of your ministry. That was in 1972.

In 1974, in a confidential document to the ministry by an industrial hygiene laboratory, the dust counts in the mill, with a threshold limit value of 2, were as high as 225. And the average dust count in the whole mill was 14.7. That was in the fall of 1974. In the spring of 1975 the mill closed.

Mr. Martel: Were you the Minister of Mines then?

Mr. Laughren: I want to tell you something, Mr. Chairman, that is just one of the reasons we have no confidence whatsoever in this ministry or this minister, because in the intervening years, 1969 to 1975, asbestos plants were actually closed in the United States because of the dust problem. So nobody was paying any attention to what was going on in other parts of North America, let alone in our own jurisdiction.

In summary, I don’t want to take up too much time, I would say that for the following reasons: The fact the resources are non-renewable; the fact there is a lack of a secondary industry established by the resource corporations; the fact the resource corporations such as Falconbridge in particular have failed to refine their resources here; the fact there is a boom-and-bust mentality and economic activity on the part of the resource corporations; the fact there is an inability to tax them properly; the fact they have such holdings elsewhere they can manipulate the exploitation of the resources to their own benefit; the fact they have an ability to stockpile and sell the ores at a later date to their own profit, despite what contract negotiations might be going on; the fact the nature of the industry is all oligopolistic; the fact the industry has paid little heed to the safety and the health of the miners; the fact those resources are ours, not ours and not theirs; and the fact all this evidence continues to mount, Mr. Chairman -- that is why we say that we’re not just concerned with the economics of the resource industry, we are concerned because that’s our heritage and that’s our future, and the minister and the private sector have no right to take that from us.

Mr. Chairman: The name I have on my list is that of the member for Renfrew North.

Mr. Bain: Here he comes.

Mr. Davison: He is hurrying to his desk.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Minister aren’t you going to respond?

Mr. Warner: No response from the minister.

Mr. Martel: Manville’s your friend.

Mr. Conway: My apologies. I had anticipated a response to that speech.

Mr. Bain: So did everybody else.

Mr. Warner: We all did.

Mr. Conway: My remarks, Mr. Chairman, shall be brief. I would like to begin by congratulating my counterpart in Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) who unfortunately is not with us at the present time. He was recently appointed as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Mancini: He was the only one left.

Mr. Conway: I might say I wish him well in that. He certainly comes from an area that should provide him with an environment to be of very constructive help to the minister. So I would begin my remarks, certainly, with that congratulatory note.

I was also impressed by some of the comments in the minister’s opening remarks, which I regret to say by their very length seemed more of a filibuster than an opening statement, given the shortage of time.

[10:15]

An hon. member: Here he comes, Sean.

Mr. Conway: One of the people to whom attention was drawn in the earlier remarks was Frank MacDougall, to whom those of us who have grown up in the area of Algonquin Park owe a great deal. I certainly share in the minister’s sentiments as expressed in his opening remarks. Frank MacDougall certainly was a man of considerable pioneering skill who brought to Lands and Forests then, and Natural Resources later, the kind of spirit and the kind of pioneering attitude from which I think we have all profited.

In the remarks made by the minister, there was a certain contention, brought out later by one of our members, as to the information. I wanted at that time to draw attention to one thing that I think has not been said thus far, and that is the matter of the annual report of the ministry. I may be in error here. I do not think, however, that I am; and that is, as I understand it, the annual report of the Ministry of Natural Resources this year was planned as a shorter document, so we’re told, than in past years -- if I can believe it, because the last one issued was certainly a rather concise document. But we were promised, as I understand it, a shorter annual report this year because of the fact that it was to be offered sooner.

My information now is that the annual report of the Ministry of Natural Resources is now about 6½ months overdue. This is the kind of thing that’s very unfortunate, because we’re brought in here tonight to discuss the estimates of Natural Resources and it seems to me that it would certainly be very helpful if we were presented with an annual report. There is much to regret if, in fact, the annual report is ready only to be released when the estimates are completed.

Mr. Haggerty: The ink isn’t dry yet, is it Leo?

Mr. Conway: It was said also, and I concur in this, that the annual report as it is traditionally presented is very inadequate. Last Saturday, I met in Pembroke with a group of professional foresters from the Algonquin region of the Canadian Institute of Forestry. I asked them for their general comments about the Ministry of Natural Resources, and I asked them what it was they would like me to say and what they would say to the minister if they were presented with the opportunity. One of the complaints that they all had was with the annual report.

They didn’t use the word useless, but that certainly came out in some of their deliberations. The fact is that they find the material or the lack thereof simply very difficult to understand. They find that the ministry is presenting them with the kinds of information which are almost routine, and the facts they want as foresters and the facts I would certainly like to bring to hear to a discussion of this nature are simply not there. So I think the ministry should certainly be urged to present a more factually responsible annual report.

One thing that came out in the minister’s statement to which I would like to draw some attention, relates to the area of conservation authorities. It was with some interest that I noticed the minister’s statement, beginning on page 27 and running through the subsequent pages, that the ministry and the minister felt a certain degree of comfort with the progress made in the area of conservation and particularly in water management. I thought that was rather interesting in the light of a report which I read in the Toronto Globe and Mail on Nov. 22 of this year. If I might be allowed to read the first two paragraphs of this article, from the Globe and Mail of Nov. 22 of this year:

“Ontario’s 33 conservation authorities have asked the government for a policy decision on their future role in water management, land acquisition and a variety of other things. The authorities have complained to the provincial procedures committee that they have been faced with inconsistent decisions and interpretations from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

“The agencies told the committee they feel they are working in an administrative nightmare. No one understands provincial budgetary forms, statistical reports from the ministry yield little useful information and there appears to be a lack of communication between sections of the ministry.”

I find it a rather contradictory set of circumstances that we should be presented with this report with a feeling from the ministry that there is a certain degree of progress -- in fact more than a little progress -- being made on the one hand, while and on the other hand we have all 33 conservation authorities saying they are working in an administrative nightmare. Clearly those people involved do not share the minister’s feeling of accomplishment here.

My area of particular concern relates to the Algonquin region, particularly the Algonquin Park situation. One of the things we face for the first time is an institution and an agency known as the Algonquin Forest Authority. Independent of how I may feel about the Algonquin Forest Authority, I think it important for me at this point in time to transmit some of the growing concern that foresters and forest people in my area have about the AFA. There is, I might say, a deep-seated suspicion about it. Whether or not it’s a justified one we shall see with the passage of time.

The suspicion I sense is that lumber people, both labour and management, are concerned that we have here yet another government-run and government-sponsored marketing agency. If we have learned anything in the past number of months, both from provincial and federal experience, it seems to be that very often government-run marketing agencies create more problems than they solve.

In particular, I am concerned that the Ministry of Natural Resources, and in fact the government of the day, in a sincere effort -- and I’m willing to concede this -- to redirect resource policy development and programmes in a very contentious area of Ontario have failed seriously in one area. They appointed an Algonquin Forest Authority and they appointed to the board of that agency in my area of Renfrew county two members -- and we received only two members on the eight or 10 man board of directors -- whose political profile is of such a kind that it discredits, in the eyes of many, the Algonquin Forest Authority. The two men who were appointed to the Algonquin Forest Authority from Renfrew county are two very high profile Progressive Conservatives. It concerns me. Someone mentioned earlier today a very interesting book by Prof. H. V. Nelles, a book which those of us in the resource area might profitably read. It’s called “Politics of Development: Forests, Mines, and Hydro-Electric Power in Ontario in the Past 100 Years.” The Nelles thesis is that the government has been far too political in the resource sector I can certainly say that is so, as someone who has grown up in the area of Algonquin Park. I am not ashamed to admit, as someone who has relatives very actively involved in the forest industries, they are relatives who, I might add, share not only the political affiliations of my party but of the government of the day.

Mr. Bain: Aren’t you ashamed of that? You shouldn’t admit that.

Mr. Conway: I might say what has happened here is that the effort of the ministry to take the pork-barrel aspect away, if this can possibly be done, from resource development in Algonquin Park, has been defeated. When you appoint two people of such a kind to something like the Algonquin Forest Authority, you simply remind people who deal with the ministry and with the Algonquin Forest Authority -- what else is new? What has changed? Nothing. And I regret that. I think that the Algonquin Forest Authority might have been given more of a chance.

I wish it well but, given the politicization of those appointments, it will succeed less quickly than it might otherwise have done.

Mr. Haggerty: They had John Robarts at one time as head.

Mr. Philip: Enough of that.

Mr. Conway: The question of cottages in Algonquin Park is one I would also like to draw attention to. I’m not sure the Minister of Natural Resources is aware of the fact that given the pattern of dissolution of the present lease-hold arrangement -- whereby cottagers are allowed to lease cottages in Algonquin Park -- given the pattern that we seem to be facing, it may very well be that in the last years of cottage leases in Algonquin Park we will have by far and away a majority of non-residents in a position of holding leases. I think that’s something that the ministry might direct its attention toward.

I see the time is running out but there is one point that I’d like to raise. It deals with timber licensing and the collection of timber dues from the various timber producers. I would end my remarks very briefly tonight with a question to the minister: Does the Ministry of Natural Resources entertain and exercise a series of exceptions --

Mr. Mancini: He definitely entertains.

Mr. Conway: -- to the Crown Timber Act, such that certain timber operators might for a variety of reasons be allowed an exemption? So that they be allowed not to pay their stumpage dues? Is there a set of exceptions to the regulations in your ministry such that a timber operator might not pay his stumpage dues for whatever reason?

Hon. Mr. Irvine moved the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House I’d like to remind the members that tomorrow we continue with the debate on the Throne Speech.

Hon. Mr. Irvine moved the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.