Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

House in committee of the whole.

Mr. Chairman: Members of the committee, as this is my first opportunity to act as your chairman of the committee of the whole House, I would like to take a moment of the committee’s time to thank you sincerely for the honour and opportunity of being of service to you in this capacity.

In the previous Parliament, I enjoyed serving as chairman of a standing committee and appreciated the respect of all members accorded the Chair. I look forward of course to this new session of Parliament and hope that the duties of this committee will be carried out in a useful and productive manner. I will do my best to fulfil my duties in an impartial way and would ask all members, and particularly the new members, to become familiar with the rules of procedure of the committee. I know if this is done that the work of the committee will run smoothly, and in turn benefit the people of the province. I look forward to working with all hon. members and particularly the Deputy Chairman, the member for Simcoe East (Mr. G. E. Smith), who has had previous experience in this position.

Thank you again for the confidence you have placed in me as your chairman of the committee of the whole House.

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 1, An Act to amend The Unified Family Court Act, 1976.

Bill 1 reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment and asked for leave to sit again.

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 1, An Act to amend The Unified Family Court Act, 1976.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 2, An Act to amend The Environmental Assessment Act, 1975.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) adjourned the debate last evening, and I would like to continue.

The whole issue which sparked this amendment to The Environmental Assessment Act is one which I recall very clearly. I happen to have attended the press conference which was held at a hotel not too far from here over a year ago where Treaty No. 8 revealed to the public at large, for the first time, to my knowledge, what it was that the government, and in particular the Ministry of Natural Resources and the then Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), were planning in collaboration with the Reed Paper Company. I use the word collaboration, although there are other more sinister words that would apply.

I can assure you that until that time there had been no word about it, and there would have been no announcement by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Indeed the government’s response and the minister’s response when that particular news conference was over was that it was really all being taken out of context and exaggerated.

We learned as time went on that this was not the case, that Treaty No. 9 was absolutely correct and that their worst fears had a great deal of foundation. The response of the Minister of Natural Resources at the time and the Premier (Mr. Davis) was truly typical. They ran and hid from the issue as long as they could and denied that it was being planned. They denied the proposed contract between Reed and the Ministry of Natural Resources was going to happen.

But we know now, of course, that it was about to happen; and we owe, I think, a tribute of thanks to Treaty No. 9 for having brought this to public attention. Certainly it would have only been announced to the public as a fait accompli had it been left to the Minister of Natural Resources. It was only when the pressures increased, and when questions were raised here in the Legislature and in the public at large, that the Minister of Natural Resources and the Premier were forced to admit, although they wouldn’t agree to these words, that a sweetheart deal was indeed being arranged between Reed Paper Company and the Minister of Natural Resources.

Of course the Minister of Natural Resources reacted in what has become a way that we expect from him -- total capitulation. We saw it with the whole area of occupational health, and we saw it again in this field of environmental assessment for northwestern Ontario. That was the beginning of the end for Mr. Bernier, although of course he would not like to admit that.

But the tactics that Mr. Bernier used, Mr. Speaker, before we could get to this point where tonight we are debating an amendment to The Environmental Assessment Act, were indeed shameless. These amendments are necessary. It’s necessary that these amendments be put before this Legislature and become the law of the province of Ontario in order that a proper assessment can be done of the whole Reed Paper proposal in northwestern Ontario.

But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you would agree with me, that the question is not just one of development for that particular area of land. Indeed if you look at the amendment it makes no reference whatsoever to the Reed Paper proposal. Rather it deals with the whole question of development in northwestern Ontario, or indeed any other place in the province of Ontario.

That surely is part of the problem of this government when it deals with northern Ontario. For 34 years they have not had any kind of vision for northern Ontario. They have had instead a series of rather opportunistic political reactions to any given issue. They have had a political response to every problem in northern Ontario, whether it is in the northwest, the northeast or the north in general. One need look no further than the whole question of development in general. If we look at the mining industry or if we look at the forestry industry, the same rules are applied by this government.

This bill requires that there be an inquiry under The Environmental Assessment Act, but I am uneasy about it, Mr. Speaker. I am uneasy about using The Environmental Assessment Act to investigate a specific problem such as Reed Paper. I can tell you why I am uneasy. I am worried that this amendment will mean that The Environmental Assessment Act will be used for a series of investigations, a series of inquiries, and never allow for a look at the broad problem of development in northern Ontario.

There seems to be some kind of mythology about northern Ontario, in the sense that if you are not a northern member and you are speaking about the problems of northern Ontario you really don’t have too much to say that’s valid. Nothing could be sillier than that approach. When some of my southern Ontario colleagues were speaking on this bill there were interjections from the other parties that they were southern Ontario members. It seems to me that a southern Ontario member can have a pretty good idea as to what kind of development should occur in the province of Ontario, just as can a northern Ontario member.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the north may be different from southern Ontario but it is not intimidatingly different. It is not so different that planners and economists cannot look at northern Ontario in a sense of what is best, not just for the north but for all of Ontario. For too long, when planners and economists have looked at northern Ontario they have said what is best for southern Ontario is the way we develop northern Ontario.

I would not for one minute want you to take my word for this. May I refer you to a document that was published by the Sudbury Chamber of Commerce called A Profile in Failure. That document says very well what we as New Democrats have been saying for many years about the failure of this government to address itself to the problems of development in northern Ontario. They are speaking specifically to northeastern Ontario, but certainly the same kind of comments could be made about this government’s attitude to northwestern Ontario or to northern Ontario in general.

The point that needs to be made is that the north is big, the north is sparsely populated, but the north is not so different from the rest of the province of Ontario. It consists of thriving cities and communities. It consists of small towns and small cities, and it consists of rural areas. What needs to be done is that this province has to look at northern Ontario as part of an overall problem of lopsided development in the province, and to this date the province has failed to do that.

I would refer any of the members to the document put out by the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce called A Profile in Failure. I think what they have to say about this government and this government’s attitude towards development and towards northern Ontario speaks volumes. It is not often that the New Democrats and the Chamber of Commerce for a community can join hands and agree on something as profoundly as we agreed on their document A Profile in Failure.

Many of us are dismayed that the future development of northwestern Ontario may very well be largely in the hands of the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier). That bothers us a great deal. It’s one of the reasons that we support this amendment to The Environmental Assessment Act. It takes out of the hands of the Minister of Northern Affairs any kind of charting of the progress of the north in the foreseeable future, particularly in northwestern Ontario.

We are very very worried about the Minister of Northern Affairs. We know that when it comes time to chart the future of the north that the Minister of Northern Affairs will always use the lowest common denominator when making decisions about the future of the north, and we are tired of that kind of approach to development in northern Ontario. The Minister of Northern Affairs has lost any kind of credibility he ever might have had in northern Ontario. The fact that he has been salvaged from unemployment by a post in what is called the Ministry of Northern Affairs doesn’t fool anyone in northern Ontario.

[8:15]

As for the fact that he would use such a thing to -- well, there are nice terms for it -- but that that minister would run across northern Ontario saying in reference to the Reed proposal that the New Democrats and anyone else who wanted an environmental assessment done really didn’t care about jobs in northern Ontario is plain and simply dishonest. That is not the approach of this party. We have always said that we believe in the proper development of northern Ontario, but not at the expense of the environment, not at the expense of the native peoples of northern Ontario and not for the benefit of the southern part of the province. For the Minister of Northern Affairs to imply --

Mr. Warner: He is the minister of natural disasters.

Mr. Laughren: -- that we as a party are more interested in saving the environment than we are in jobs is simply not true and is only giving one half of the equation. What we are saying is that we are interested in the development of northern Ontario, more interested than he is as a matter of fact, because we have put very clear alternatives to the development of northern Ontario, certainly more than this Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) has or this minister ever has. We are giving clear alternatives to development in the north, while he goes across the province fear-mongering, implying that the New Democrats are not interested in development or employment in northern Ontario.

What we are interested in is creating employment, but creating good employment and creating employment which at the same time protects the rights of native people and protects the environment, the rather fragile environment that exists in many parts of northern Ontario. Nowhere is that better exemplified than in northwestern Ontario where he was prepared to go into an area with very little concern for the whole regenerative process of our forest industries and give away a large part of this province to Reed Paper, whose record is not something I am proud of, which they indeed should not be proud of and which the minister as a matter of fact should be ashamed at because he is the steward of our resources.

It bothers me a great deal that that particular minister has been the steward of our resources for so long. It’s no coincidence that such an agreement -- call it a memorandum of understanding if you wish, Mr. Speaker -- was being negotiated behind closed doors when that particular minister was doing the negotiating.

That particular minister has yet to negotiate with an open door, and it won’t change as long as he sits in the front row of the Conservative government in the province of Ontario. He bothers us a great deal. That is the Minister of Northern Affairs. He is -- no, I won’t say it.

Mr. Warner: Why not?

Mr. Laughren: I am pleased, in a sense, we have reached the stage in which we are debating in the Legislature an amendment to The Environment Assessment Act, prompted by the whole question of development in a part of Ontario which has never had a proper environmental assessment study done. I’m pleased the Hartt inquiry is going to happen. As I said earlier, I’m worried they might get into the position of having to respond more to presentations than to go out in an aggressive fashion and conduct an inquiry more along the lines of the Berger inquiry, where the inquiry itself was the aggressor as opposed to receiving briefs and commenting on briefs presented to them.

Finally, I hope when the inquiry is being conducted by Chief Justice Hartt it will establish its priorities early. My own priorities would be, first of all, the whole question of native rights in that part of northwestern Ontario which my colleague from Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) outlined, I thought, very succinctly, last night in this chamber. I hope that the chief justice will read those remarks because I think that has to be our number one priority.

Secondly, there is the whole question of resources and their regeneration, and we are talking about forests. That surely has to be secondary in importance, but nevertheless extremely important because the foresters in the province of Ontario expressed very grave concern about then. These are professional foresters who know very well how fragile even a renewable resource such as forests can be if it is not treated properly. I must say it takes an unusual government to turn a renewable resource into an unrenewable one, but this government is capable of that act. That’s another reason why we are in favour of this amendment to The Environmental Assessment Act and for the whole inquiry being established.

Finally, we hope that the chief justice will look at the whole question of economic development in northwestern Ontario. Some day I hope this government will move to establish some kind of strategy, not just for northern Ontario but for all of Ontario, keeping in mind that there are unique resources in northern Ontario that are not present in the southern part of the province, and that this will allow us for the first time to have a strategy for development for all of Ontario, keeping in mind the particular assets of the north so that not only the south benefits from the riches of the north but the north benefits as well.

Some day, Mr. Speaker, perhaps at one of our receptions, I could get you in a corner and you could explain to me how it is that we still have in the province of Ontario -- only in the north, as far as I how -- such things as community taps for towns of 800 people. Somebody’s going to have to explain that to me. I don’t know whether there are any community taps up in the area of the Reed Paper proposal --

Mr. Lewis: That’s not a wiretap.

Mr. Laughren: No, it’s not a wiretap.

Mr. Cunningham: That is a public trough.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I can see the wavelength you are on.

Mr. Laughren: As a matter of fact, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) understands that issue very well.

Mr. Lewis: It’s like the Minister of Energy’s verbal facility -- a running tap.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I can see the wavelength you are on.

Mr. Laughren: I want to tell the Minister of the Environment that it’s too late for him now. When the community tap was put into Gogama, they built a statue of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) and incorporated the tap into the statue.

Mr. Warner: Tell him where.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I put a sewer into that community.

Mr. Laughren: You’ll just have to eat your heart out. Let us hope there dawns in the province of Ontario a realization by people that the day is gone when you can draw those kinds of lines about the standard of living and about the quality of life in this province and say to 800 people in a community in the north that they will live with a community tap. That is simply not acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I notice you’re looking a little edgy at that talk about a community tap under The Environmental Assessment Act, but I want to tell you, that’s the kind of thing that needs to be looked at and that this Environmental Assessment Act amendment will not allow to happen. I’m nervous about this Environmental Assessment Act being used for a specific proposal such as Reed Paper. I don’t want to be contradictory about it because there did need to be an environmental assessment study done or an inquiry held on the whole Reed proposal but the need for an inquiry into the whole question of development in northwestern Ontario goes much broader than what is happening with that Reed Paper proposal.

I understand the kinds of problems that Chief Justice Hartt is going to have as he conducts the study. I sympathize with him on the problems he’s going to have. We just hope he can get on with it as quickly as possible and that he can be aggressive about it without taking an undue length of time.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we in this party will be following the progress of that inquiry very closely and encouraging an aggressive attitude being taken towards the Reed Paper proposal so that we can once and for all, hopefully, settle whether or not there is a sane kind of development that can occur in that particular part of the province. We have our suspicions and doubts, certainly about the memorandum of understanding that was signed by the then Minister of Natural Resources, but we are still at this point in time encouraging the passing of this Environmental Assessment Act amendment and encouraging Chief Justice Hartt to get on with this study.

Mr. S. Smith: I wish to speak briefly. We welcome the inquiry that’s to be conducted by Mr. Justice Hartt. We are of the opinion it is high time that there be developed a policy toward the development of the resource base of the province, particularly the growth and then the decline of one-industry towns, the need to recognize the enormous impact that this has environmentally in a narrow sense and on the social environment of people. We hope that’s what will come out of his inquiry.

We have to recognize that the days when governments can conduct their negotiations with large or small companies in secrecy and then hope to spring agreements on the people of Ontario, those days, thankfully, are over. We now have to act in the light of day with full public input wherever that’s possible.

I believe that the native peoples have had their confidence damaged very badly by the secret negotiations which preceded the revelations regarding the Reed deal. Certainly, in my conversations with people from Treaty No. 9, they’ve indicated to me a real feeling of shock and disbelief that their interests and their persons would have been totally ignored in the course of negotiations which went on in great secrecy.

I feel that if Mr. Justice Hartt is to succeed in his inquiry, and we all hope that he does, he is going to need, above all, the confidence of the native peoples, the people of Treaty No. 9. It is obvious to us, from conversations we have had, that the people of Treaty No. 9 are looking a little to the south to the treatment that has been meted out to the people of Whitedog, the people of Grassy Narrows and the people of Treaty No. 3.

We believe that one of the important things that this government must do, in association with setting up the inquiry by Mr. Justice Hartt, is win back the confidence of the native peoples. We have suggested, for instance, that there be an agreement similar to the northlands agreement signed in Manitoba, whereby considerable federal and provincial sums would be devoted to the rehabilitation of various industrial possibilities among the native peoples. We have suggested that the tragedies which have been occurring in area after area where native persons are involved -- the tragedies of the disappearance of their traditional lifestyles, the inability of the traditional lifestyles and traditional occupations to support the large population; the social deterioration which, sadly, has been documented from time to time, along with health deterioration -- these things are a blight. They are a blight on our own conscience and, as people who are interested in government in Ontario, we have to correct this and our native peoples most certainly have to be given the consideration that has long been due them.

I feel, particularly, that if there are jobs to be created with development, these jobs ought to go, first and foremost, to native persons. It’s not enough to expect that they will be able to continue their livelihood of hunting and fishing in most areas because, frankly, even where the waters are not polluted that has not been sufficient for these people. They know that. But I think it’s very important that we consider, not just the large timber rights but things like the small sawmill operation and the wild rice crop. Many of these things have been detailed so well by the former holder of this position, Leader of the Opposition, the present leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis). I certainly feel that we, as Ontarians, have this obligation to be certain that what jobs are created are created without disturbing the physical environment unduly and without ruining the social environment, and that these jobs are made available, first of all, to the native peoples.

One very important way that we can gain the confidence of native peoples everywhere, and particularly in Treaty No. 9, is to be much fairer in our dealings with the native peoples who have suffered so much on Whitedog and Grassy Narrows. I feel that these people have asked, very reasonably, not for very much. But one of the things they’ve asked for is the chance to save the lives of the fishing guides, the wives of the fishing guides and the children of the fishing guides. They have asked for this and they have said that these lives, at present in danger, can be saved if there is a ban on sport fishing in the English and Wabigoon Rivers system. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, from conversations I have had with both the chief of Whitedog and the chief of Grassy Narrows, that the refusal of the government to accede to these demands has caused a tremendous gulf to occur in their ability to trust the government, in their ability to believe in the kinds of institutions which we in the government set up.

[8:30]

I think therefore it is exceedingly important that we accede to the particular wish which they have expressed, which is the wish to have sport fishing banned on the English and Wabigoon Rivers system. I feel it’s a reasonable request. I have gone into this in great detail elsewhere; I don’t see any need to go into it at great length at this moment. But if we want the Hartt inquiry to succeed and we all most earnestly do, we have to show some measure of good faith, some measure of genuine interest in the native peoples. Surely we can accede to the one thing they have been asking for, the one thing which would show that we are truly prepared to make the sacrifices we have to make to try to make good the damage which our society has inflicted upon these native persons.

So I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when this goes to committee -- and I hope it will go to committee; we intend to ask for that -- that I intend to introduce at that point an amendment to section 2 of The Environmental Assessment Amendment Act which is before us now. In that amendment I will at that time be asking to delete the words “it receives royal assent” and add the words “following the implementation of a ban on sport fishing on the English-Wabigoon Rivers system.”

I realize I will have time then to debate it and I will not act out of order by debating it now. Let me just say, however, as a means of drawing the attention of the House to this amendment which we will be bringing forward, the effect of such an amendment would be to prevent the Hartt inquiry from going forward until the necessary step which we think is required to get the required confidence of the native peoples, until that step has also been taken -- that is a ban on sport fishing on the English and Wabigoon Rivers system. We look forward to the committee in order to debate that particular item.

Therefore I draw my remarks to a close by saying we are very interested in the inquiry. We hope it will go forward. We want to create the best possible conditions for it. We want to be certain that the native persons have trust and confidence in the inquiry. We feel it’s about time that this government recognized the need to respond to the native peoples of Ontario. Particularly since the government is in a minority situation, we feel it’s about time they recognized that they are going to have to do something they may not have intended to do or may not prefer to do, although I am told that some members of the cabinet would prefer to do this. Others would not.

In any event, we will have our opportunity to debate that later on. That’s the sum total of the remarks I care to make this evening until committee and I shall speak again in committee and propose this amendment. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Mr. Renwick: With the becoming modesty of a person from the south, I intend to speak laconically about this proposed amendment. I welcome of course any comments that any members from the north may wish to make about the affairs of the riding of Riverdale. I need a lot of help in there because I have sat in opposition to a Tory government for 13 years representing that riding and I want to say that if perhaps people in the north have some qualms about listening to me speak about their affairs, I welcome any support I may possibly get in Riverdale -- for example, about a GO Transit station at de Grassi Street or any of those important matters which relate to the God-fearing, taxpaying people of Riverdale.

First of all I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) that I’ve have received notice of the intended amendment and that will have careful consideration by our caucus to determine what action we should take to it. But I did want to speak to my fellow southerner, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr), about the bill which he is proposing to us. I want to share with him a certain apprehension I have about the tone of the debate last night and perhaps a bit of the tone of the debate tonight as reflected in the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition -- but particularly last night. I am concerned, and I express this concern to the minister about the work that was done -- I agree it was done by concerned persons in this assembly -- but I think it’s fair to say that it was done under the thrust and leadership of the leader of the New Democratic Party to get the government to consider the appointment of this kind of a commission to look at northern Ontario on the vexed question of environment protection and development. Now because of the election -- and it’s reflected in what took place last night -- the mood and the style and the tone of what we were talking about have changed.

I think it has something to do with the switch in the seats in the north. I think the members of the government, particularly the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller), the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Henderson) are all determined, to the extent it is possible to do so, that there will be a Hartt commission, but a very truncated one, one that will be under intense pressure to report very quickly and get the job done, so that the forces of development will overcome the forces of those who want a more moderate development and a carefully constructed protection of what everyone, I believe, considers to be a fragile environment.

I heard those tones within the remarks made by the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid), I heard somewhat the same remarks, undertone or current, in the remarks made by the member for Nipissing (Mr. Bolan) and I certainly heard it in the interjections and the comments that were made by members of the government party, particularly the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) when he spoke briefly about it last night. So I think we have an ongoing question of principle before the assembly, where the pendulum will continue to swing, I assume, long after any of us here have vacated the place. That is: How do you balance off and have the benefits of environmental protection, staged development, rejuvenation of renewable resources, careful use and exploitation of non-renewable resources and protection of the native peoples? How do you have all of those things in the face of an economy that is demanding there be jobs, that jobs be created, that development go on unimpeded in the style in which the Tory government and the predecessor governments in Ontario have had their version of development in the north?

That battle is still going on. I think that we on balance remain where we are on that issue; that is that we want a carefully understood and studied modulation of the development of the northern part of Ontario in a way which is best suited to the whole of the province. In that way, I have as much interest as any other member.

I want to say to the minister that I am rather concerned and I think I should share this with the leader of the Liberal Party as to whether or not there isn’t going to come about at this point in time a significant delay in the implementation of the appointment of Mr. Justice Hartt as the commissioner or the person to carry out this inquiry. This is the first concern I want to have.

I want to express my approval, if I may, of the form which the minister has taken to introduce this amendment and to bring the possibility of the creation of the commission within the framework of The Environmental Assessment Act. I was concerned for some time as to whether or not it might not have been best, rather than to have a continuing amendment of The Environmental Assessment Act, to have introduced a separate and special bill to deal with this matter, to put the terms of reference right in the bill, have the commissioner appointed under the bill and have it dealt with that way, rather than to have a generalized Part III introduced into the bill, which will be there for some considerable time, and then have terms of reference by order in council appointing the commissioner.

I think if one lived in a black and white world I would have preferred the other alternative; that is, a special bill to cover those particular questions. But I am satisfied with the way in which this amendment is drawn and I’m satisfied with the language of it. Despite some comments that were made, I believe by the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), I’m pleased to see that it hasn’t just been thrown under the Public Inquiries Act. I share what I believe to be the concerns of counsel for the ministry that The Public Inquiries Act has some archaisms in it and some antiquated provisions which are not particularly appropriate.

So within those limits I am rather pleased with the way in which the minister has chosen to amend the statute. I’m particularly pleased that this method incorporates a matter which we discussed at some length when the bill was in committee in its original form, when we were trying to deal with this vexed question of who interested persons are for the purpose of making representations before anyone appointed under the Act.

So I’m satisfied with the legal framework. I do hope that the very fact that there are provisions for stated cases and for objections, and God forbid that I should use the phrase, committing people for contempt, that those will not be used or not be necessary. I hope that all persons interested will be interested in furthering the purpose of the inquiry and not be raising the usual legal obstacles to any successful conclusions to its work.

But I want now to come to what I take to be -- and we have the advantage in our caucus of an exchange of views with Mr. Justice Hartt on these questions -- as to just what the purpose was. The amendment to the bill permits a very wide-ranging inquiry to be appointed. The wide-ranging inquiry is going to be appointed and Mr. Justice Hartt is going to be the commissioner. My concern, strangely enough, isn’t what we want but how do you fit it in within the lifetime of Mr. Justice Hartt or any of his lineal successors in order to complete the work which is envisaged if the terms of reference are taken at their face value.

I think the resolution that we in this caucus would like to see is that what we are really asking or telling Mr. Justice Hartt -- and I suppose in a sense I’m speaking directly to him in absentia -- about what we believe should be done, and I’m certain he’ll do it in his own way. I think that he should take as the major focus of the question which this assembly is asking him to be that when any developmental project from now until the year 2000 or thereafter comes forward for consideration by the government, from private industry or from the public sector, that the result of the commission will be to establish the kind of procedures and guidelines and methods of assessment which each and every development will be subjected to, so that we will have an overall framework within which we can approach the question of approval or disapproval of individual developmental projects in the north.

I think the only way that one can deal with that kind of question is for him to use a certain limited number of projects which are under consideration or on the horizon for the purpose of focusing attention on the more generalized conclusions which he would have to recommend for all projects at all times so far as we can foresee them.

[8:45]

He should use, for example, the Reed Paper project as typical of what used to be done. It may well be that he must consider a number of other vital problems that have to be concerned. I have spoken and others more intimately involved and more closely connected can speak to it. But I think we have to renegotiate Treaty No. 9 to which the province of Ontario and the federal government and the Indian communities around the James Bay are party, because that in my view is an iniquitous treaty and needs renegotiation. I would hope that he would lead the way toward pointing out the ways in which appropriate changes could be made with respect to the relationship between the native peoples and their land and how they are to benefit in the course of developmental projects which may be undertaken.

We have, of course, the smaller question of the lignite deposit at Onakawana. We have also I am told the question of the deposits at St. Joseph. Therefore, that kind of question may very well be the kind of typical cases which the commissioner can analyse for the purpose, not just of those specific projects, but for laying out a method by which, over a period of time, each and every projected and anticipated development in the north can be successfully assessed and valued and equated to the social, economic, political and cultural needs of that part of Ontario and, in saying that, for the whole of the province of Ontario.

I think it is possible within that framework for the commissioner with care, which I know he will give to the matter, with an expert staff, which I know will be available to him but with a carefully constrained area of operation for his commission, may well be able to move relatively expeditiously to deal with certain aspects of the problems.

I would assume, and I am sure the minister would confirm, that it is not necessarily a one-report-only operation. It may well be that certain aspects of his work can be the subject of a series of reports over a period of time, rather than to impress upon the commissioner that yes he must report and be finished within two years or three years.

I want to say what must now be obvious to all of us, that what is known colloquially as the Berger commission of course was related to a specific project -- that is whether or not there should be a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley. And in a funny way the work of the Berger commission, whether it is implemented in these recommendations or not, has suddenly led everybody to sort of shy away from the Mackenzie Valley, but to say now we can do it more easily down the Trans-Canada Highway. Instead of taking two or three years we can do it in two or three months and we appoint a representative person such as Dean Lysyk to carry out the study.

I want to make it clear to the minister that is not what we are talking about. We are not talking about Mr. Justice Hartt dealing only with the Reed project and then coming up and saying whether that is a good project or not. It may or may not be, but I want him to use it simply for the purpose of typifying and symbolizing the kind of way in which development projects will be examined and assessed in the future from all points of view.

Therefore, it seems to me -- I hope I am wrong -- but I would hope that what we have been trying to say in this debate will maintain the balance that existed with respect to the concern in the assembly about the vexing problem of development on the one hand and environmental protection on the other, including all of the questions which we raised throughout the whole of the questions and answers and debates and changes, gradual changes, in the government policies from the time when the Reed project was first conceived in the brain of the president of Reed and the brain of the then Minister of Natural Resources, until we got to this point.

I don’t want the Reed project to impinge upon and dictate the terms of the Hartt commission. As I say I can see, and I can sense in the air, an endeavour to gradually restrict the conception of the Hartt commission back to just the Reed Paper project because of the immediate success, obviously, of the rather crass policy of the Minister of Northern Affairs and the Minister of Housing and the Minister without Portfolio in the course of the last election when the question of let’s get on with it, let’s get on with the developments, let’s get the jobs created, let’s get all of that done, and in a sense weighing the balance against the kind of environmental concerns which the minister has. The minister, being the frank person he is, doesn’t hide the problem that there are real divisions within the cabinet. Obviously there must be real divisions everywhere on this vexed question of how you go about a modulated and moderate development of the north in an intelligent and sensible way, in an overall way.

Mr. Nixon: The minister is going to support our amendment.

Mr. Renwick: It seems to me, for example, that we are going to have to face, somewhere before the turn of the century, the questions -- and I don’t pretend to know anything about them, as they are just words to me -- of the polar gasline down through there; we are going to have to face before the turn of the century what, if any, interest -- and it has no present jurisdiction -- does the province of Ontario have under James Bay should any significant mineral or other deposits be found under James Bay.

We’ve got to deal with the question of Treaty No. 9; and to the extent that it is within our power with the North-West Angle Treaty. We are going to have to deal, as the select committee on hydro rates indicated, with the whole question of the capacity or possibility of the large rivers flowing into James Bay being an additional source of hydro-electric power in the province. We are going to have to deal with the poisoning of the English-Wabigoon Rivers system. We are going to have to deal with how to replace the economic environment of the native communities in that area, those who live within that framework of that economy, and how we are going to replace the economic conditions for them in the least insidious way with respect to the destruction of their way of life and their background and culture, which at this point in time is quite tenuous and to which we all are extremely sensitive.

So I am just really saying to the minister, please let’s not at the beginning start to think about the Hartt commission as having only a short lifetime or having a limited mandate, even though the terms of reference of that mandate may be very broad and very wide, because he, the commissioner, will obviously be looking to the government --

Mr. Sargent: Quit wandering and cut it down to 18 minutes.

Mr. Renwick: -- and I hope will be looking as well to what has been said in this assembly about the way in which he should go about the selection of the way in which he studies these various problems. I would like some indication from the minister, for example, that yes, he does envisage a series of reports from the commissioner; that those reports will deal with the commissioner’s selection of areas of concern --

Mr. Sargent: You talk too long. Crystallize the deal.

Mr. Renwick: -- and that over a period of time it will be possible as a result of this commission to know how we go about that question of a careful and moderate and modulated development of the north which will ensure and maximize the economic development of the north consistent with all of the trite things that can be said but must be said about the protection of the cultural, social, economic and other parts of that particular vast extent of northern Ontario. I hope in due course the minister might respond to those comments.

Mr. Nixon: I wanted to speak briefly on the amendment that is before us. Certainly we on this side favour the amendment as it is established, and particularly the appointment of Mr. Justice Hartt, who attended our caucus as well as the NDP caucus to indicate his views and to answer questions which I thought was a very intelligent step for him to take under the circumstances. It is imperative, I believe, that all parties support the concept of this review. It is to be hoped that his recommendations will not be too long in the offing and that the House can proceed with any ancillary legislation in order to act upon his basic recommendations.

I am sorry the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) is not in the House at this time because it must obviously concern him, as much as the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr), that this bill receive approval on all sides of the House.

I hope the establishment of this chairmanship under The Environmental Assessment Act does not mean that the government is not going to undertake, let’s say an investigation or at least a review of the affairs in the northern part of the province by the members themselves. As the hon. Minister of the Environment must surely recall, on previous occasions, usually following a general election, there was an opportunity given to all members of the Legislature to travel into northern Ontario to meet not only those people involved in the business of development but those in municipal affairs and the native people as well, and not in the rarefied atmosphere of the committee rooms of Queen’s Park but in their own communities. While it doesn’t appear that very many people on the government benches are listening to my remarks I would certainly hope that some of their multitudinous assistants will bring to their attention that at least this member of the opposition is very much in favour indeed of the private members of the Legislature having an opportunity to travel into the north, even to the area covered by the ambit of the responsibilities we hope to give Mr. Justice Hartt, to see for ourselves what is happening in the native communities and to see for ourselves the resources which we may be asked to sign over to the development of one company or another in the future.

I believe that we, as members of the Legislature, do not abdicate all of our responsibilities if this bill carries and Mr. Justice Hartt accepts the responsibilities that we hope will be laid on his shoulders. There is no doubt that his review of this matter will take many months. As a matter of fact, I am afraid it might take many years. I would hope, whether or not there is going to he development in that area, that it is not going to be unduly postponed by the discourses and the hearings that undoubtedly will be a major part of this assessment.

The minister indicated, as have various statements, that the terms of reference for Mr. Justice Hartt will be everything north of the French River or north of a certain parallel, including all of the northern part of the province. As a result, there are many problems which certainly will be submitted to him. The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who is no longer in the House this evening, has indicated some of those, such as the development of the lignite deposits south of Moosonee and certain other deposits which lie in the public domain and which must concern us all as far as the timing and the importance of their development is concerned.

We have heard of the inadequate response, I suppose, to the rights of the native people in the north by both the government of Canada, which is primary in this regard, and the government of this province. I’ve been reading a number of articles recently on the role the government of the United States of America has played in meeting the demands of the native people of the state of Alaska. As most hon. members would know, not only were large territories set aside for the exclusive use of the natives but payment of $1 billion to the native community over a period of years was arrived at in order to set at rest once and for all the claims from the native communities as to the use of the territories involved. I believe this is the sort of thing that faces us.

I’m sure you at least are interested in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, even if my whip is not, but it seems to me that there is an example even closer to home in the position taken by the province of Quebec in dealing with the native peoples in the northern part of that province in which, after careful deliberation, the so-called National Assembly of the province of Quebec has agreed to a rather generous payment to the native people to -- I suppose expunge is not the right word to use in this regard, but at least to meet the statements, the feelings and the challenges, legal and otherwise, made by the native peoples in that regard. Whether or not that is completely satisfactory to both parties, I am not in a position to say. But we in this province have really done nothing to meet these challenges, legal and otherwise, in the northern part of the province of Ontario.

[9:00]

Many members of this House and certainly most citizens of Ontario -- or most citizens of Canada living in Ontario -- are not aware of the tremendous expanse of territory that is a part of the province of Ontario in those northern reaches. Someone pointed out to me once that if the map of the province were cut out of cardboard and you were to balance it on your finger, the fulcrum would be somewhere around Kapuskasing. In other words, there is as much territory north of Kapuskasing as there is south. When you think of how far some of us feel we have travelled when we go to Kapuskasing on matters public and otherwise, then it really is an impressive concept when you think of all of that territory north of Kapuskasing which is certainly contested as far as the legal rights for development are concerned.

So I would think that aside from the development of the forest resources of the territory that the government wanted to sign over to Reed Paper some months ago, the tremendous responsibility for Mr. Hartt to give recommendations to this government and its successors as to the status and the stance that must be recognized is something that must really impress us all.

So to return to my first point, I would hope that those members of the government who would have responsibility in this connection would undertake to see that during the course of this investigation there will be an opportunity for the members of the Legislature to travel, hopefully in a large group, into the north to meet with those people involved in the development of our resources, the mining and forest resources particularly. They should be able to meet with those people who have municipal responsibilities, and as important as any other to meet with the native people in their own stamping ground.

I notice the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) is somewhat amused by this suggestion. As a matter of fact, when I first got to know him, he and I and a number of other members of the Legislature were on just such a tour of northern Ontario. We were meeting with the native people on fishing rights, as I understand. From the camp of the white man, a member of our party, as I recall -- small “p” party, that is, made up of all members of the Legislature -- had commandeered a boat and gone over to the Indian village and through a most amazing feat of daring had returned with an armful of lake trout, the like of which you, Mr. Speaker, have never seen before.

An hon. member: With respect.

Mr. Nixon: With respect, with respect. The fact that some of the Indians were behind him in a boat waving their paddles and shotguns has probably nothing to do with the outcome of the situation. I would say to you, Mr. Speaker -- you no doubt were there -- that we were extremely well received by all parties and the fish was delicious. If it weren’t for the native people to catch it, we would have starved and that’s a fact.

An hon. member: You’re your own liquor control board.

Mr. Nixon: I’m disappointed that the member for the new Ministry of Northern Affairs is not here. The first time I ever met him was when, as a member of the Legislature, I was on one of these northern fact-finding tours and we were travelling through the main street of the town of Hudson, which at that time was not even paved. I believe it was Mr. Robarts who was the Premier -- Prime Minister, as he liked to call himself at the time -- and he was travelling in the lead limousine -- the rest of us were coming along in school buses, as I recall. There was a banner across the main street of Hudson saying: “Welcome to the members of the Legislature. Mr. Robarts, we need housing.” And there beside the banner, waving his arms and saying hello to all the Tories, was “Leo Berni-ay,” as we called him then. It’s Bernier; Bernier, yes; but we called him “Berni-ay” then.

Mr. Roy: Now that he has become governor.

Mr. Nixon: We all stopped and we debussed, or de-limousined depending upon our status, and we gathered around Mr. Bernier. He indicated how important it was that housing was brought into Hudson. To be fair, I have to tell all the details, because at that time the constituency was represented by a Liberal, as I recall -- or there was a by-election pending, perhaps that was it.

An hon. member: And we won the seat at both of them.

Mr. Nixon: Bob Gibson, a fine gentleman indeed, was elected on January 18, 1962.

Mr. Lewis: You remember that date?

Mr. Nixon: I remember very well. There was Mr. Bernier; he was keeping store at the time. They sold groceries and rubber boots, as I recall, but he made quite an impression.

Mr. Reid: Not necessarily in that order.

Mr. Nixon: It was a tremendously invigorating experience, as the Minister of Agriculture and Food can testify.

Mr. Roy: How many of those trips did you go on?

Mr. Nixon: I was on several and there are a lot of things about the north that I don’t know yet. Like the member for Riverdale, there are a few details that escaped us both. But I’ll tell you, on that occasion, I believe the Lands and Forests air force was put at our disposal -- those planes that were not in use by the cabinet ministers. They had a tremendous armada of something like 15 planes, mostly those old Otters with the double wings that flapped, you may recall, and one great big motor on the front that thrashed away like mad. We were taken up to Trout Lake. We slept in the schoolhouse, as I recall, and we met with the Indian leaders there and, of course, the leaders of the Anglican church.

Mr. Breithaupt: It was possible to tell the difference?

Mr. Nixon: You’d better believe it. There was a line drawn down the main street -- no, that’s not true; as a matter of fact we had an excellent time there and we certainly received a lot of information on and hospitality of that part of northwestern Ontario.

We went on to Port Severn, which is about as far as you can go if you want to stay in Ontario -- and who doesn’t? Actually we were all supposed to fly into some place called Attawapiskat. There was a time when I didn’t pronounce that correctly and perhaps the Conservative House leader would like to try.

Mr. Cunningham: That was before Pat Reid’s time.

Mr. Nixon: But as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, you may recall the situation because as we left Port Severn the reports came in from the communications service that Attawapiskat was pretty well socked in with bad weather, and so only one plane could go in, because of course the people there had prepared to receive the delegation to express their views about northern development, which is after all, Mr. Speaker, what we’re talking about. So it was decided that only one plane could go in. The then Minister of Lands and Forests was a gentleman named Kelso Roberts, much respected by members on all sides. He almost became Premier; and who knows, if he had, how things might have been different, but he didn’t quite make it.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Tory delegates had a problem in spelling.

Mr. Nixon: That’s right. Anyway, Mr. Roberts would have to go into Attawapiskat and I think the hon. member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) might recall this because I believe we drew cards from a deck as to who would fly along with the minister. Anyway, the member for York South had probably arranged, in his usual way, to be included in the trip. I drew a card, and my God it was the ace of spades and I thought: “Well, this may be the end of a political career.”

Mr. MacDonald: The leaders went along.

Mr. Nixon: But we flew into Attawapiskat and there we were received by the Roman Catholic clergy. There was no fooling around, because they not only had a bell in the church but they had loudspeakers, so that when the priest in charge there, an excellent gentleman whose name eludes me at the moment, wanted the people to come to meet this delegation he rang the bell and got on the blower in the Cree language, I believe, and the Indian people came in and gave us a royal welcome indeed. They had beans, bacon and homemade bread for, I guess, about 50; and the Minister of Lands and Forests, the member for York South and the then member for Brant cleaned up on most of it, as I recall.

Mr. Reid: There was no shortage of gas, I presume.

Mr. Nixon: Hardly any shortage at all. I simply bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that these are fond memories of mine. While the House leader for the government might not consider it helpful, I would recommend very strenuously to him, if he has any voice at all in cabinet -- and I have never seen it demonstrated so far -- that he see to it that there is an opportunity for the members of this House, many of whom have never been past Gravenhurst or even Orillia, to go into the north and see what’s there, to see the attitudes of the people. It is just a little bit different even than the attitudes of the people of South Dumfries, strong and forthright though they are.

I would also like to say, as far as the review of these matters by Mr. Justice Hartt is concerned, my leader has made it eminently clear that we hope not only will this review take place but that it will be predicated upon the confidence that the native people will have in this House and this government and the review as constituted by the Act of this Legislature. I believe the amendment he has been referring to, which we will be debating later, is one which can accomplish this and one which surely the Minister of the Environment above all other cabinet ministers will be able to support.

I remember very clearly his stating in his own forthright way during the election campaign that he for one felt that the English and Wabigoon systems should have been closed, but it was not possible for him to convince his recalcitrant colleagues to go along with him. It is not often that this kind of insight into the problems that cabinet ministers face is made public, but it’s the sort of thing which surely can now be put to some sort of a test in this House.

Mr. Roy: We will support the Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Nixon: I must say this because a few days ago I found the money necessary to purchase a copy of George Hutchinson’s book Grassy Narrows, which is a very interesting book indeed, well written and with good photographs in it. I am sure that it’s a service to the broad community indeed that this book was published. I noticed there is even a blurb in support of it from the member for York South, who is also extensively quoted from time to time in the book.

Mr. MacDonald: I read it before it was published.

Mr. Lewis: So are you.

Mr. Nixon: Well, of course, why not? As a matter of fact he quotes extensively from all sides. One of the things really came back to me as I read the excerpts from Hansard having to do with the original question from our good friend Mr. Burr, the former member for Windsor-Riverside, which even according to Mr. Burr, was a shot in the dark. He asked: “Are you concerned with mercury pollution here? We have been reading about it in Japan and Sweden.” The answer from the then Minister of the Environment -- was it you?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, it was.

Mr. Nixon: The answer was sort of an indication that we didn’t know anything about it but we would look into it and so on. It was from that small beginning. I do not hold a brief for Reed Paper. I don’t even know how to spell “Reed.”

Mr. Reid: Without an “i.”

Mr. Nixon: Without an “i.” I am sorry about that.

But I do know that at the time of this original problem there were very few people who felt that industrial mercury itself was a pollutant. I feel the only responsibility must lie with the government of the day. I can recall the present Minister of the Environment in one of his previous incarnations pounding the desk, almost splitting it and saying the polluter must pay. I agree with him; I agree with him wholeheartedly.

Mr. Breithaupt: Like Khrushchev with his shoe on the desk.

[9:15]

Mr. Nixon: Very similar.

I must say there were no scientists -- let’s say very few scientists -- in this province who were prepared to say that mercury in its elemental state was an environmental pollutant of concern. I am sure there were those who worked for Reed Paper and Dow and others who were giving somebody the devil for wasting mercury, because it was an expensive component of their industrial process. But all that does not exonerate the government or the polluters themselves from the effects on the environment and the community as they occur, particularly since further information which has come to us from many sources, including good research right here in Ontario, has indicated the far-reaching and devastating effects of this pollutant. I feel that, to be fair, I must express a personal view in that connection.

Certainly we hope this bill will receive the approval of this House. I don’t see anything blocking the acceptance of the amendment that has been referred to by my hon. leader, which is a good one and I think an effective one, and I would hope the government would accept it. This House, in this short session, can move a strong and confident step forward -- perhaps not to repairing the damage that has taken place, but seeing to it that the further development of the north is going to be in the best interests of all of the people of this province and primarily those people in the native communities who live in that area.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t share, Mr. Speaker, the wealth of memoir material --

Mr. Nixon: You were along. Don’t you remember?

Mr. Lewis: -- which the barefoot lad from South Dumfries occasionally shares with the Legislature but I do, with him, have the sense that there is a lot about the north that I don’t know of yet. For instance, I’ve never visited Minaki Lodge --

Mr. Nixon: At your reduced salary you may never.

Mr. Lewis: At some point in my political career I hope to achieve that object; as I said the other day, sotto voce, in the dead of night.

I am always glad to be dealing with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) on issues such as these, although so much has been given to the Minister of the Environment by way of potential authority in this legislation that one has to worry a little about his precarious position in cabinet. Will it again be a situation of the minister standing against all the rest? I didn’t really mind when the Premier (Mr. Davis) levelled him, but it did bother me a little bit when the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller) put him to the ground; he is barely half the minister’s size, for heaven’s sake. One would have wished that the minister would have had at least the girth, if not the pride, to reply. It will be interesting to see what happens in the situation of this bill, and the consequences which flow from it, whether or not the word and influence of the Minister of the Environment can supersede or override that of his colleague, the Minister of Northern Affairs.

I must say in passing, if I may, that the Liberal amendment is indeed an interesting one and, of course, we are considering it in our caucus. The Liberals, with their usual inspired dexterity, have managed to fashion an amendment which on the one hand may not close down the English-Wabigoon system, and on the other hand may defeat the whole inquiry. That takes some doing, to have destroyed both objects at once.

Mr. Nixon: Are you going to vote for it or against it?

Mr. Lewis: However, with our usual charity, we may rescue them. We’re not certain yet; we’ll take a close look at it.

Mr. Reid: You have a choice.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s your future.

Mr. Lewis: No, just my choice. My future, fortunately, is resolved.

May I say, if I can bring the minister back to it, that the genesis of this whole piece of legislation, as the Minister of the Environment will recall, is the Reed Paper company memorandum. I am sure the minister, as you yourself were, Mr. Speaker, was here in the House on that memorable day when the then Minister of Natural Resources, the about-to-be Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), felt that he had engaged in a brilliant coup by releasing that memorandum at precisely the psychological moment designed to devastate the opposition and the public. With his unerring sense of bad judgement, he didn’t recognize what he was unleashing and what a frail and objectionable document that memorandum actually was. He entirely misunderstood, of course, the public response. It’s also worth noting, Mr. Speaker, what occurred last night at about 10:25 when the about-to-be Minister of Northern Affairs stood in his place in this House and extolled the virtues of the bill, telling those of us in the opposition parties how it would allow for a careful and thorough review in various stages of this particular project and others, as though it was a creation from the fertile mind of the minister. In fact when the memorandum was first introduced he had no intention whatsoever of permitting the kind of inquiry which has now been forced upon the government.

May I say to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman), if he is unhappy or uncomfortable when I refer to fertile minds and point to him, he need only shift his seat.

As a result of what took place during the course of that period of public outrage we have this bill. It’s a good bill, and it’s a good amendment, and it’s possible to support it comfortably. It speaks, doesn’t it, to the needs and priorities of northern Ontario in a way most members of this Legislature have attempted to describe over the years. It clearly, because of the nature of the bill, reflects the acute anxiety which members on this side of the House, and I guess particularly in a way which wasn’t always acceptable to members of the Liberal Party certainly, it reflects the anxiety which those of us in the New Democratic Party had about the proposed Reed project.

When my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) rose last night and said that he was proud if all that could be salvaged from that last minority period was the fact that we had stopped the Reed Paper company proposal as originally designed and intended -- he was proud of that and judged it a sufficient measure of achievement -- I agreed with him. If for no other reason, the minority government period was justified or that account, because now we’re getting the kind of assessment which opposition voices have pleaded for over the years in terms of the criteria which should be involved in bringing development to the north.

A digression: My mind goes right back to those early days of the Reed Paper company and the debate in this House and all of the tumult and controversy which took place. I think I can talk about this tonight, for obvious reasons. I remember at the time meeting -- it was well publicized -- with the president of the Reed Paper company. It was within the week or 10 days after the memorandum of agreement had been -- as a matter of fact, I had never intervened in such a serene and joyous corporate environment; it was really something to see. I think it was up on the 30th or 35th floor. I have no stock; I want you to relax. As a matter of fact, the president isn’t even there any longer. Bob Billingsley has gone on to other pastures, presumably greener than Reed.

I can remember being called into his office, as I’d never been summoned by a corporate president before. It was really a very exhilarating moment for me. I palpitated all the way up the elevator. He took the time to show me around -- took me into his private sauna, took me into his private exercise room, showed me the private corporate dining room, the whole --

Mr. Mancini: Are you sure you were discussing politics?

Mr. Lewis: That may have been the point at which my decision was made, precisely. I’d only been told about it by Stanley Randall and Bob Welch, but then finally I saw it for myself.

Then we sat down together and engaged in one of those confidential tete-à-tetes which we both understood had to be quiet, given the controversy of the time. But Rob Billingsley has left now, no longer with Reed. I have the immunity of the House -- and how I cherish immunity these days; what you say in the Legislature can’t be held against you, no matter what. So I want to tell you, as the Minister of the Environment, one of the things I learned that night which made me say when I came out of our meeting why I felt even more confident about the position we had taken. After we had toyed and talked about the provincial Tories and the federal Liberals for whom Mr. Billingsley had a particular passion, I finally said to him, “Bob” -- because you can understand that while he called me Mr. Lewis, I called him Bob -- I said to him, “Bob, why do you need the memorandum? Tell me, really what do you need this memorandum of understanding for?” He said, “Well, we have to be guaranteed that the forests will be ours -- that we will get the trees.”

I said, “Nonsense, you know that is not real. Nobody else wants them. Nobody else has come to the government. What are you talking about? Tell me, really, what do you need the memorandum for?”

And he said, “Well, we are going to embark on studies, they are costly, we need some kind of security.”

I recall myself saying, “No, I don’t believe that either because nobody else is entering into studies. Nobody is going to preclude you from the ultimate project just because you are doing some studying.” I said, “Look, it is not the end of the world. I assure you that in the midst of all of this I am not going to walk out and say anything about it. Why do you really need the memorandum?”

He said, and the words remain in my mind, “We can take it to Wall Street.” And I even remember the company. He mentioned Salomon. I didn’t know about Salomon then. I mean Salomon Brothers, as I understand, is the company which has said if we had an NDP government in Ontario they wouldn’t even bat an eye; they would assume that our credit rating would improve. And I can appreciate, therefore, their insight.

Interjection.

Mr. Lewis: Does the Treasurer want to interject formally? Does he want to make a speech tonight?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member will continue.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, this is your swan song and it’s pretty poor. All this reminiscing doesn’t become you. It really doesn’t.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact --

Mr. Nixon: Are you upwardly mobile, Darcy?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West has the floor.

An hon. member: Who put vinegar in your coffee, Darcy?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Keep going.

Mr. Lewis: Whatever my last hurrah at least for me the doors are open. For you, my friend, they are closed --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Where? Where are the doors open?

Mr. Lewis: -- and that is the reason for your exercise. But why must we fight, you and I?

Mr. Speaker: Now can we get back to the bill, please?

Mr. Lewis: We are so fond of each other. Why engage in this?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have so few opportunities --

Mr. Lewis: Just relax. I hoped somebody would ask me to join their family business.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not this one!

An hon. member: Land speculation!

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: I want to say to the minister through the Speaker, if I may, that Mr. Billingsley and the Reed Paper company understood exactly the meaning of that memorandum. That memorandum for them was negotiable. That memorandum for them held sufficient promise of a likely licence, dependent on whatever series of reviews, that they could use it virtually as collateral. And that is something which we believed throughout the debate on this side of the House, otherwise we saw no point to the memorandum.

I want to say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I don’t like the province of Ontario acting as an banker for Reed Paper. That is not our role. There is enough notoriety and infamy associated with that company for various reasons -- some not of its own making; some, alas, flowing directly from the English-Wabigoon -- without our having to engage in the particular negotiations which characterize that episode at that point in time.

It was said by many people that the Reed Paper company was in financial difficulty. And obviously they are. Obviously they are very much in financial difficulty. That is why Mr. Billingsley has left. That is why one of the other chief executive officers has left. That is why they have revamped the board and Reed Paper has indicated publicly that it had had some financial problems. I don’t particularly think we should have entered into a memorandum of understanding which might have been of assistance to the company.

[9:30]

But all of that aside, many other people in the province of Ontario and certainly within both opposition parties had the sense that this whole relationship that the government was entering into would not ultimately benefit the people of northwestern Ontario because it was all drawn up too precipitately, because it didn’t have enough safeguards, economic as well as environmental, because it was duplicating patterns of northern development which had existed previously where yon mine out the non-renewable resource and leave no economic infrastructure for those struggling little communities -- the kind of things to which the minister’s colleague from Fort William referred last night. So we pressed, as a great many voices pressed -- I don’t pretend it was only ourselves -- for a much broader inquiry. As a result of the pressure, cumulative and insistent, Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt emerged on the scene.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nonsense.

Mr. Lewis: No? Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt just descended from on high?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nonsense. Your pressure has never done anything worthwhile in this province, and you know it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, I said quite clearly that our pressure alone did not do it. It was cumulative and irresistible.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, you are quite right. It was no part of it.

Mr. Lewis: I will tell the Treasurer how we managed it. We managed it by the cumulative pressure of the opposition parties in the Legislature, by all of the pressure from the media, from many of the public utterances by public groups together, by the extraordinary inadequacies of the then Minister of Natural Resources and by the important, not to say indispensable, assist of the paranoid apoplexy of the Treasurer himself. That was the turning point.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nonsense.

Mr. Lewis: Now, he can relax.

Ms. Gigantes: Give him a megaphone.

Mr. Drea: And you wound up third.

Mr. Warner: Why does the Treasurer show his ignorance?

Ms. Gigantes: Use a megaphone.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Your rhetoric gets worse.

Mr. Cassidy: The Treasurer must have lost his credit rating tonight.

Mr. Sargent: He has got to go.

Mr. Roy: If there is anything we don’t want it is “Frack” Drea saying anything here. You’re on the seating plan, “Frack”.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You have always been so modest.

An hon. member: Certainly the Treasurer never is.

Mr. Swart: No one will ever accuse him of that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Scarborough West has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t want to turn on the Treasurer tonight. I don’t think he could handle it. I think he is vulnerable tonight. Therefore, I would like to turn back to the principle of the bill if the Deputy Speaker will permit me.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It would be awfully nice if you did.

Mr. Lewis: That would be a pleasure, wouldn’t it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It would be awfully nice.

Mr. Lewis: Then why doesn’t the Treasurer be silent for a moment, I ask him respectfully, and I will --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I wait breathlessly.

Mr. Lewis: Good grief. Isn’t it enough that the Tories couldn’t win a majority and the premiership isn’t open? Is that not enough to induce modesty even into one who is barely mortal?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is really hurting you to be sitting where you are instead of over there, eh?

Mr. Lewis: I beg the Deputy Speaker for order; either eject him or silence him -- by coercion, if possible.

May I turn my remarks back to the Minister of the Environment and remind him that because the Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt inquiry was not originally intended, we now have a broadly based matter under The Environmental Assessment Act which makes for Mr. Justice Hartt a very difficult job. We support him in that job. In a sense in this debate, through all members of the House and through all parties, we speak to Mr. Justice Hartt.

It is obvious that Mr. Justice Hartt will have to look at the kinds of development for northern Ontario and the tests for that development in northern Ontario, particularly the question of jobs -- how they are secured, not only on a temporary basis and not just in the construction of major projects that are capital intensive, therefore requiring very small employment thereafter, but in the long run with the secondary economic infrastructure built into these resource-based communities.

He will have to look at the kinds of developments and at the tests for developments. He must obviously, as so many of my colleagues have said, also look at the native people’s position in northern Ontario and particularly the re-negotiation of Treaty No. 9, the implications for the land claims flowing logically from what has been said by the Liberal Party this evening; also perhaps the whole question of the Reed Paper company and the English-Wabigoon, which moves beyond and above the 50th parallel, as well as the whole matter of how to secure the future of northern Ontario. That’s really what Mr. Justice Hartt is doing.

Our submission to the minister is that Mr. Justice Hartt therefore shouldn’t be preoccupied by too many individual projects, because that would ruin the inquiry. If we refer to Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt, Onakawana and Lake St. Joseph and Polar Gas and all of the other prospective individual projects in addition to the Reed Paper company, he will be so preoccupied by analysing the individual and mammoth undertakings that we will never get a sense of what the north needs in terms of development and the overall tests that should be applicable. So what we are hoping to convey to the minister and with this to Mr. Justice Hartt is that the Reed Paper company should simply be illustrative of the kinds of tests to which development should be subjected in northern Ontario.

Look at the incredible scope of this inquiry which was never even thought of initially. It is an inquiry that covers the northwest and the northeast. It is an inquiry that has absolute and open carte blanche. We cannot hamstring the commissioner by a succession of referrals that will move him or divert him from the main object, which is to secure the future of the north.

Mr. Sargent: We must have deadlines.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t mind the setting of deadlines at all, and I’m hoping that Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt will give himself in the initial stages --

Mr. Sargent: Not five years; 18 months.

Mr. Lewis: -- eighteen months or two years to finish the first part of it on which government can then act. May I also remind you, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt will have to sit down for the first six or eight weeks and decide what he wants to look at, and how he wants to look at it. He sat with us in caucus no more than a week ago and said exactly that. He’s commissioner of an inquiry which has been discussed publicly for six mouths and he still doesn’t know how he will now proceed. That’s because it is such a massive undertaking, and one can commiserate and understand that. We are all hoping on this side of the House that Mr. Justice Hartt will look at it in those terms and see the Reed company project, if indeed it continues to exist as a viable project, as an illustration only in that context and for those reasons -- leaving aside for the moment the Liberal amendment, which will be a matter of fascination at the point at which it comes to this House in committee.

For those reasons and in that context we support with goodwill, with enthusiasm, everything that is set about by this bill. We wish the terms of reference were included in the legislation. We hope if the terms of reference are amended that the minister will bring them back before the House, because I think that is important. But we understand what the problem is; we see the potential for Mr. Justice Hartt; we hope, as the member has interjected many times, there’ll be some kind of time limit on it, and finally after 34 years or more, we now have a minority situation sufficiently persistent in Ontario where we can get the kind of tests for northern development that will give to that region of Ontario equality with the south. That’s what this bill is all about.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few words on the bill itself and on the amendment as proposed by our leader in his comments. I think, as has been pointed out by many previous speakers, this whole development, in spite of the interjections of the Treasurer, certainly didn’t come about by any undue initiative on the part of the government on its own. I think the government will admit that. Certainly there were pressures, and it was brought on -- in fact it was forced on to the government. But nevertheless it is a very important development for a region that for too long has been taken for granted.

If I may just inject something personal in this whole debate, I had occasion to work at Reed Paper for two summers as a law student, working in the chemical plant there at Reed Paper.

Mr. Sargent: Did you get paid?

Mr. Roy: Sure I got paid and I didn’t mind making a profit. I was fortunate enough to have a brother who was a doctor in Dryden and I was staying at my brother’s place and working in the chemical plant.

Then as a student -- this was 1962, 1963 -- I used to walk from Reed Paper back home. Apart from having to tolerate the terrible, terrible smell coming out of the chimneys there when the wind was from the wrong side, one used to look at this large pipe gushing out chemicals into the Wabigoon River system. This pipe must have been six feet in diameter, going full shot, 24 hours a day, just gushing this material, orange and yellow and all sorts of colours, into the Wabigoon River system. At that time, as a student, I used to wonder how it was possible to allow that sort of thing to go on. One used to be able to drive along the Wabigoon River system for 20, 30 miles and you could see it was dead, that the whole river system --

Mr. Sargent: Do you have that in Cornwall, George?

Mr. Roy: -- had just no life in it.

It’s sort of ironic that that having taken place and having experienced that, we are at present debating a piece of legislation that I would hope, in another sort of way, will bring on an emphasis that will not permit the raping of natural resources that we’ve done in the past -- without being unduly harsh on Reed Paper, on the people at that time, or the people in government at that time. There wasn’t a perception at that time of the problems that might flow on the long term. Certainly there was no perception of any problem towards the native people who were in the area.

So I think this is an extremely important occasion and I think something that all of us should be proud of.

I may make this comment. I’ve heard so many laudatory comments towards Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt, about his appointment and the function that he will play in this inquiry. I might say I had the honour and pleasure in the courts of pleading before Mr. Justice Hartt -- that was prior to his appointment to the Law Reform Commission. At that time he always had a reputation -- and a well-deserved reputation -- as one who was extremely sensitive, sensible, and an extremely humane judge and one who was extremely experienced at that time in the criminal field. So I want to support my colleagues and, I think, the choice of Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt was an extremely good choice.

But I do make this comment about it --

Mr. Sargent: He’s still a lawyer, though.

Mr. Roy: I still make this comment about it, Mr. Speaker. Well, to my colleague, we’re not all bad. Some of us, Eddie, have some conscience at certain times.

Mr. Lewis: Eddie, Liberal lawyers are fine.

Mr. Roy: Yes, especially the Liberal ones. The Liberal lawyers.

Mr. Lewis: Take Vernon Singer, for example.

Mr. Sargent: You can have him.

Mr. Roy: But, Mr. Speaker, if I may say this, I can recall then Mr. Justice Hartt being appointed to the Law Reform Commission. And again, I felt at that time that his appointment by the then Minister of Justice, John Turner, was an excellent choice. So they got into this question of law reform. But I thought the thing that was sad in this whole question of law reform is that here they were taking in briefs and looking at ideas about reforming the law, making it more relevant to the 20th century or to the 1970s, and at that time, unfortunately, they were bypassed by the events. I really felt that was one of the dangers, and it is one of the dangers here, is that as good as the briefs were, as good as the recommendations were, the events had passed them by --

Mr. MacDonald: Don’t speak too loudly; you will waken Darcy.

Mr. Roy: -- on many of their reforms in the law. You know, this attitude that we felt no criminal was intrinsically bad, that the problem was always with society and therefore the question of punishment became irrelevant and all of this. You recall, and I’m sure the minister will recall, that so many briefs came out of there. I’ve had occasion to discuss this with Mr. Justice Hartt.

That’s what we have to be careful about. I would make these comments and I would say to Mr. Justice Hartt that we must be extremely careful that when we’re looking at a problem of this sort -- and I agree with, for instance, the leader of the NDP when he talks about when you’ve got a commission, an inquiry of that scope and a commissioner of that capacity, why limit it to this particular problem. As he said, the Reed Paper problem is part of the overall problems of the north. We might look at it all.

Mr. Sargent: Wind it up. Come on; wind it up.

[9:45]

Mr. Roy: We must be extremely careful, Mr. Speaker, if I may say this, that not too much time is spent that the events bypass us. It may well happen in this. I talk about some of the comments that I’ve heard about; my colleague has talked about the taking of five years. That’s what may well happen. You get into a situation, you look at certain problems, and some of the things you were looking at five years ago have bypassed you and their relevancy becomes questionable. That’s what happened to law reform. I would put that caveat on and suggest to Mr. Justice Hartt that surely it shouldn’t take five years to look at this overall problem. Surely the scope and duration of this inquiry should be limited much more than that.

Having made these comments, in no way do I want to be critical of Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt, but I felt sad about this whole law reform thing because back in 1968 when it was first established we were looking at all the changes that could take place but, unfortunately, that’s what happened. There were too many briefs, there was too much study and there were too many things going on for years that lost their relevancy. If anybody wants to see all these briefs and all the recommendations that have been made, if they were to be suggested today in 1977, some people would say that they’re not relevant and have no significance in today’s society. So I would put that caution on it. It should be looked at thoroughly, as I’m sure he will. He should be given the power to have as wide a scope as possible but, on the other hand, there should be a time limit on this. Finally, the amendment that my leader has proposed is a good amendment. I say to the Minister of the Environment as the leader of the NDP said: You were taken on by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller) and lost. I’d hate to see you take on Big Leo.

We’re going to support the government on this, if it wants to close up the river system, and we’re going to tack it on to this particular bill. We’ll support the government on that if that is its feeling. That is our feeling here. That is our position. Surely it’s in the concept. It flows from the overall scope that we feel this inquiry should have. It does make sense in the concept we’re discussing and in the momentous occasion that this is. Finally, after all this time, after what has happened in the past, this generation is prepared to say: “Hold it. Stop it. Let’s look at it thoroughly.” One of the things we can do is what is proposed in this amendment.

Mr. Germa: I’m happy to participate for just a few moments in this debate regarding the amendment to The Environmental Assessment Act.

The reference to the 50th parallel in the amendment motivated me to take a look at the map just to understand how much of Ontario is north of the 50th parallel. While the area is very large in expanse, the population in the area is quite sparse. About the only major development north of the 50th parallel, I guess, would be the Canadian National railway as it goes through that area. None of Highway 17, the Trans-Canada Highway, is north of the 50th parallel. What we’re talking about is almost virgin territory which, to this point in time, has not been destroyed to the degree that that part of northern Ontario, just a little bit south of the 50th, has been destroyed. It being the area I come from, I am familiar with the destruction that has taken place as the result of the extraction of the resources in that particular part of northern Ontario.

I can understand the wide terms of reference and I can understand Mr. Hartt’s predicament in that he, himself, is in a quandary to know just what he will be looking at or what he wants to determine. I’m sure he will be reading these debates. I would suggest to him to get a good perspective of what can happen without his intervention he should take a tour across that part of northern Ontario where the development is, particularly in northeastern Ontario where we have the mining development that has been going on for some 50 or 60 years. He will see we have not had all benefits. Even though we have extracted billions of dollars worth of resources from that particular part of the province the people who live in that area really haven’t received the benefits that I think should have accrued to them as the result of their willingness to participate in the affairs of Ontario and extraction of these resources.

If he were to visit Sudbury, for instance, he would very readily see that despite the billions of dollars that have been extracted from the ground there, if the environment had to be replaced we would still be in a deficit position. Because of the destruction that has happened in that particular area as a result of extracting the resource, the value is just not there to replace the forests that have been ruined, the lakes that have been poisoned, the rivers that have been polluted, the destruction to commercial fishing, the destruction of sport fishing. All of these things are what Mr. Justice Hartt would see if he were to travel through that particular area.

If he wants to go back in history, he can look in the debates of this Legislature. I am sure maybe some of the members who have been here a long time will remember the day when the commercial fishermen on the Spanish River went to the court and got an injunction against the Kalamazoo Vegetable Parchment Company which was running a mill in Espanola, and members will recall that the courts issued a cease and desist order on dumping pollutants into the Spanish River system. What did this government do? They passed the KVP bill which gave Kalamazoo permission to pollute the Spanish River.

Mr. MacDonald: And suspended the court order.

Mr. Germa: Yes, this is how this government has acted; and for the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) to sit here tonight and try to tell my leader that they were motivated by their own conscience into bringing this amendment in, I just cannot believe it, because the record shows that for the past 30 years they have allowed destruction to go on in northern Ontario which should not and cannot be tolerated any further.

An hon. member: It’s shameful.

Mr. Germa: It is shameful; it certainly is.

The reason for the inquiry I think, and because we are venturing into new ground what Mr. Hartt will have to do, is to try to devise a method for assessing development to determine just what the benefits and destruction are going to be. After having devised this method, then we can lay that model on any development which comes in the future and we can then make a determination whether in fact this development should go ahead.

We have long lived on the premise in northern Ontario, or the government of the day has lived on the premise, that all you have to do to keep the people in northern Ontario satisfied is to give them a job in the mine or in the pulp mill and they should be happy and satisfied to sit there and live on their wages.

You can really see, Mr. Speaker, the financial predicaments of all of the towns in northern Ontario, that you just cannot have a viable community on miners’ wages or smeltermen’s wages or lumberjacks’ wages. There just are not those kinds of wages being paid. All of these low-paid jobs just will not support the community. So there has to be a broadening in the type of work, in the higher-paid jobs in northern Ontario, and I hope Mr. Justice Hartt will look at that and take steps to ensure that some of these jobs that have a higher wage rate will be located in the northern part of the province, which in turn will make the community which grows up as a result of the resource development much more viable, because we just cannot live on wages alone.

He is going to have to look at the taxing structure, the municipal tax structure in the northern part of the province, and he will readily see that for the services that we receive we are not getting dollar value as compared with those people in the southern part of the province. We are so far distant from almost anything, culturally or educationally.

He is going to have to look at transportation costs. A case in point is the differential in gasoline prices between the southern part of the province and the northern part of the province. Here we are in the location where the distances are magnified, probably 10 to one with the southern part of the province, and yet the price of energy to move our vehicle has a 10 or 12 per cent increase on the price of it. The climate adversely affects our mileage; it drives up the cost horribly, and I think Mr. Hartt is going to have to look at that aspect of it.

He might make a recommendation, for instance, that this government should move to ameliorate the differential between the price of energy in the northern part of the province and that of the southern part. Oh, I know, the government could come back and tell me, “We’ve already dealt with that. We are going to sell you a car licence for $10 in northern Ontario, whereas we are going to charge people in the southern part of the province $60,” which in their mind will be a $50 gift to the people of Ontario. That might flatten out the transportation cost some small degree, but that doesn’t heat my house. Fuel oil costs are equally exorbitant in the northern part of the province, and here we are in that climate having to use more fuel oil.

I‘m welcoming this amendment. The development I’ve seen across that part of northern Ontario which is now developed -- Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Elliot Lake, North Bay -- Mr. Hartt will see destruction like you wouldn’t believe exists. In fact, I am sure there are many members in this House who have not seen that kind of destruction. Take a look at what this government allowed to happen in Elliot Lake in the development of the uranium mines. How many dead bodies did we have to pile up around this government before they did some little thing to ameliorate the working conditions in the mines in Elliot Lake? How many silicosis cases, how many lung cancer cases have we brought to the government’s attention? Those are the things, too, that Mr. Hartt will be taking into consideration. Certainly, I am happy to support this bill, and I will lend every assistance to the commissioner in his inquiry.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, my remarks are only with respect to the procedure concerning how this bill shall come before the House. I understand that on behalf of both the government and of the New Democratic Party they wish some time to consider the amendment which was placed by my leader tonight. Therefore rather than proceed in committee immediately after the passage on second reading, as I presume this bill will get this evening, we would certainly be quite prepared to stand over the committee stage for a day or so as may be required to deal with the matter. That would allow us then to obtain second reading of the bill and perhaps to proceed with the other second reading stages of the Treasury bills as had otherwise been planned. It may be that that approach will be of some convenience to the minister, and we would certainly be more than happy to accommodate in that way.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, just to speak briefly on woodlots in Lakeshore and to show my vast and stunning ignorance of the north. Nevertheless, I think it is important to say, and to give some rather personal perspective on the Hartt inquiry.

First of all, one welcomes Patrick Hartt as a judge who is even somewhat peculiar. We don’t have half enough peculiarity in this world. We have to work at eccentricity in order to make the rainbow glow. In his case, his peculiarity consists of the fact that he happens to be a highly imaginative and visionary judge. He proved it in the Law Reform Commission work, which was always searching, which was totally in contradistinction to the type of work, valid as it is and relevant as it was, of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. That was a sort of empirical, concrete, hardnosed, down-to-earth, humdrum, even vulgar form of exercise. Hartt took off on occasion and showed the law as it might be 25 years from now, not what it would be the day after tomorrow. I would trust the same kind of mentality would prevail in the work that he would do in northern Ontario.

[10:00]

The terms of reference have been cast extremely broad. That suits him, in my opinion, down to the ground; that’s what he needs. He needs elbow room in which to move. He’s going to hire a first-rate staff, scientists; that is already under way.

They are at the present moment short of funds, I believe. In other words, we haven’t passed the legislation and therefore you can’t requisition the cash with which to send the thing into operation, so it stands in limbo or in some kind of abeyance at the present; and that’s a great shame, because these people that they wish to pull in to the research staff to start those gears turning are highly elusive people. They’re in great demand, they are very rare and they could be easily lost; and every day lost with the calling of the election has placed this inquiry all by itself in some degree of jeopardy.

Mr. Justice Hartt and his team will have vast resources in terms of studies that will give them the basic, at-their-fingertips wherewithal to begin to ferret out and to search out the lines of guidance. I mean down through the years that I’ve been here in this House there must have been, I think 10 to 12 studies in the field of forestry alone -- some of them done through the ministry itself which, believe it or not, were critical of the operations of the ministry in this regard. So this all lies at his fingertips.

The second element of this thing is the consideration of our north. The possibilities, the fecundity, the explorable and exploitable materials of the north haven’t even really begun to be touched. Those vast forests, if they were properly managed, which they have not been, are our single most valuable resource. I’m told that 62 million cunits will be necessary in 1980, and we’re going to fall two or three million short of that even as things stand at present.

The demands for paper, for plywood and for pulp products are going to be very great. I understand, and I would give assent to the work that Hartt would do beyond the pedestrian intent of mapping our resources and things. My feeling is he should explore from the forest resources in terms of R and D, research and development potential, with the kind of people he can pull into this thing, the future chemical and technological capabilities, not of metals but particularly of the woods.

I’m told that out of the woods can be generated additives to gasoline which may very greatly assist in our energy development. The possibilities that are only beginning to be touched with respect to the components in wood in the way of supplying substitutes for energy in all its forms, including hydro energy, are an immense potential lying there for us to use, but no particular direction is being given to it. Again within the terms of the Hartt inquiry, this would be very much anticipated and extremely welcomed.

It is on those lines and with that kind of thought involved, that I would indicate, as far as I am concerned to this House, that the pivotal point at which he should enter his inquiry would be precisely around the Reed Paper business -- around forestry, Reed being symbolic of that and whatever conclusions are reached there will have effect on and will influence very greatly whatever other recommendations he makes in that particular area across the whole province of course. But since that is what precipitated the thing to start with, I think that would be the single best point to enter into the inquiry.

From that central core will flow a whole host of things: whether certain river systems should be reversed because of the impact they will have on the forest; the native peoples and their lives vis-à-vis the life of the forest; and the animals in there and the habitat. We all think a little in parallel terms with Berger and Hartt. I would like Mr. Justice Hartt to place the native people in the environment and to take into the future of our interrelationship with the woods and with the north. We too are part of nature and not some kind of removed suzerains, simply there to torture and exploit what we can get out of it without considering what are the effects upon our own temperaments and, therefore, upon the forest resources and upon the mineral wealth of the province flowing from that.

I think within that environmental and conservationist contest he can work out the whole concepts of multiple use with respect to the forest and with respect to the harvesting of the forest. From that again, there are fishery resources there, and he can give recommendations. So, without prolonging this statement, out of that pivot, out of that central core of stressing Reed Paper, all the rest will flow. Therefore, he can make an interim report touching the Reed interests at a very early date, a reasonably early date, and all the rest will flow out of here by a kind of natural accretion as time goes off and the whole great picture begins to emerge. That would be the best tack to take.

Another thing he just might do is consider adopting a policy with respect to mineral resources and the holding of land in this area analogous to or identical with the way in which forests are held on the leasehold basis. Our minds ought not to go off in fee simple holdings. They should be on a lease situation for periods of time, et cetera, so that the public interest is protected with respect to that particular form of exploitation and the whole thing is not turned over to private interests as tends to be the case.

These are some of the things that might be done in the area of this inquiry, and I would sincerely ask him to take a look at the woodlots in Lakeshore.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: There were a number of points raised by various speakers last evening and this evening dealing with this amendment. One of the points that was raised by a number of speakers last night was the question of whether or not this whole matter should have proceeded under The Public Inquiries Act or by way of the amendment that we are discussing now. I think the consensus from each of those speakers as they wound up their remarks was that the protection and the provisions of this amendment not only include many of the provisions of The Public Inquiries Act, but in fact go further.

For example, under The Public Inquiries Act a person or somebody appearing must have a substantial and direct interest in the subject matter of the inquiry. Here, if a person has an interest in furthering the purpose of the inquiry, he is considered to have an interest. I think this was the result of some of the discussions between Mr. Justice Hartt and the members of the opposition caucus.

Another point was made, and I don’t want to dwell too long on this nor do I want to give anybody the wrong impression. Last night particularly suggestions were made that without the opposition of some of the members opposite to the Reed project, it would have gone ahead without an environmental assessment, and without any hearings. That is wrong.

Mr. Lewis: No, without this kind of environmental assessment.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No, there is no question that it is quite possible that this type of inquiry we are discussing in this amendment would not have taken place. All I’m asking is, don’t underestimate The Environmental Assessment Act, because there would have had to be a complete environmental impact study, a complete forest inventory and all the necessary approvals that come from an environmental assessment from my ministry and some other ministries. So the memorandum of understanding provided that, and I had some hand in that to make sure there was a complete application of The Environmental Assessment Act before this project went ahead.

Another point, which is important if there is any question about the terms of that memorandum, is that it gives the government the power to cancel the agreement at any time if the company does not live up to the conditions. When there was any conflict, for example, between the memorandum and The Environmental Assessment Act, the Act and the regulations would be paramount.

The member for Nipissing (Mr. Bolan) mentioned last night that the company had provided an environmental impact study and said this was like having a wolf guard the chicken coop or something to that effect. The fact is that under The Environmental Assessment Act the companies commission the study and hire the consultants. They have to undertake the study, provide the study, pay the expense of the study and satisfy my ministry. If the study isn’t complete, if it doesn’t include all the environmental ramifications of the project, we send it back and say, “Improve it. It should be broader. We want more information.”

This is really one of the integral parts of the provisions of The Environmental Assessment Act and, when one thinks about it, our little ministry couldn’t be expected to do all those impact studies for all those private projects which may take place from time to time in the future.

The other point that was raised by some of the members opposite was that they hoped the inquiry would develop a blueprint for the north. There were expressions by three or four different members that it would develop an economic plan for northern development and that it would develop guidelines for development in northern Ontario. I would expect, in view of the very broad terms of reference and the powers given to the commission, that certainly that would be the result of any hearings and deliberations.

We are talking, I would think, about two years of hearings; we are talking about the whole area north of the 50th parallel, and we are talking about a very broad definition of environment as provided in The Environmental Assessment Act, which of course applies to this amendment. I would think also, as the hon. member for one of the Sudbury ridings mentioned, that there would be a spillover. It wouldn’t apply strictly to north of the 50th parallel; projects just below or generally in northern Ontario having the same effect, for example, as the building of a sawmill or pulp mill would have, would also be the type of thing which would be affected by any guidelines or recommendations coming out of the Hartt inquiry. Therefore, I would suggest that the commission will provide guidelines for northern Ontario.

Mr. Reid: Does the minister see that as a main purpose?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, if the hon. member looks at the order in council itself, it talks about development north of the 50th parallel and the harvesting, supply and use of timber resources in the territorial districts of Kenora-Patricia Portion and Thunder Bay; proposals for mining, milling, smelting, oil and gas extraction, hydro-electric development, nuclear power development, water use, tourism and recreation, transportation, communications or pipelines.

[10:15]

Then it goes down into the second paragraph here, which really sets the scenario, in my opinion: “To inquire into methods that should be used in the future to assess and evaluate the effects on the environment of major enterprises in that part of Ontario that is north, or generally north, of the 50th parallel of north latitude.” So I think Reed is only part really of what is in store for the commissioner and the inquiry.

We discussed on a number of occasions the question of time. Some members, as the hon. member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) indicated, were anxious that it would take too long. The hon. member for Riverdale said there is no reason the commissioner shouldn’t have all the time he wants, because in fact the bill, the legislation itself, provides for interim reports and interim recommendations.

I should remind the hon. members that as set out in the compendium that grand council Treaty No. 9, asked that there be no limit on the length of time given for presentations to the inquiry. If the commission deals firstly, for example, with the Reed proposal, certainly the term of reference authorizes interim reports as I say and it’s going to take at least 18 months for this forest inventory that we’ve talked about. We still have to have a complete environmental impact study. So I would expect that the hearing itself and the amendment that we’re discussing here tonight would not in fact delay the Reed project, assuming it would go ahead after a proper environmental assessment under the provisions of the Act.

I expect that the order in council could be signed immediately after this bill is approved by the Legislature and the commissioner would be prepared to go and that hearings would start early this fall. The commissioner, as you know, has the power to decide what projects should be referred to him and also the government has the power to refer particular projects to the commissioner. So there is no reason why all development in the north should come to a halt. Not all projects would be considered major projects under the provisions of the order in council, or major enterprises that would come under the terms of the Act.

As far as time is concerned I would think that the passage of this bill and this amendment and the projected hearings by the commissioner, regardless of how long he may want to take, will not in fact slow down development in the north.

The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) talked about winning back the confidence of the people. I first want to remind the hon. member that certainly there was never any intention to hide this proposed project -- and I’m talking about the Reed project. It was announced in the Speech from the Throne. It was made public at that time; I believe it was in the spring of 1974. Certainly now the native people are completely satisfied with the form that this inquiry will take, with the terms of reference and, most particularly, with the commissioner himself.

Mr. Lewis: True, but only after a lot of pressure on them.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I don’t think there was any discussion or difference of opinion as far as the commissioner was concerned.

Mr. Lewis: Not the commissioner, but the whole process.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: And I don’t think there was that much arm-twisting as far as considering a broad inquiry goes.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No.

Mr. Reid: You were a reluctant bridegroom.

Mr. Conway: What happened to the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier)?

Mr. Lewis: You don’t have to do this. You don’t have to take the rap for the member for Kenora.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I would remind the hon. members that the private sector was brought under the provisions of The Environmental Assessment Act last December --

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- by way of order in council and that the Reed project at the same time by way of regulation was brought under the provision of The Environmental Assessment Act.

Mr. Lewis: But for two years the member for Kenora negotiated in private.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Well, there has to ‘be preliminary negotiation. There has to be.

Mr. Conway: Who did Leo go to anyway?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Certainly this inquiry could not have gone ahead -- the terms of reference, the material we have before us tonight could not have been dealt with and discussed by us without the confidence and the support of Treaty No. 9 leaders and of course they are anxious that the matter go ahead.

I would suggest that the Hartt inquiry can deal with and comment on the whole situation in northwestern Ontario, including the social, cultural and economic conditions in the north as they apply to the native people at the present time. There’s nothing to inhibit the commissioner from taking all that into consideration, in view of the very broad terms of reference.

The hon. members for Riverdale and Scarborough West discussed generally the purpose of the inquiry, suggested that, in so many words, don’t let Reed monopolize the whole purpose of the inquiry, and that the commissioner himself at this time, on the eve of getting hearings under way and discussing northwestern Ontario -- the people, the culture, the development, the future -- should not have tunnel vision as far as one large commercial project is concerned.

Also, the member for Scarborough West said the commissioner should not be preoccupied with too many small projects, and urged that he have the power to issue interim reports, the power to make interim recommendations, but at the same time doesn’t lose sight of what will happen down the road as a result of the future of the north, the lifestyle of the north, and the development that might take place in that area.

Again, I could refer to the order in council, but we don’t intend to hamstring the commission with numerous projects. He has the power to accept and reject, as well as the government. I can’t help but feel -- this may sound contradictory, but when you have a project as large as Reed, and are dealing with so many ramifications of the development of the north, the woodlot, the mill, the servicing, the townsite, pollution control, air emissions, the whole aspect of a development of that size -- it will cover a great deal of the concern of commercial development in the north.

So I’m hoping, of course, that this amendment, which is a good amendment and has the general acceptance of this House, will go ahead as it is so that the inquiry can get underway as soon as possible.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Hamilton East gave notice that he was dissatisfied with an answer given during the question period by the Minister of Labour. According to section 28(a) of the standing orders, I deem a motion to adjourn to have been made. Each member will now have five minutes to discuss the question, and I would call on the member for Hamilton East.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked the Minister of Labour a straightforward question of, I think, some importance. It’s a long time since there’s been an increase in the minimum wage in Ontario. Inflation has certainly bitten in rather cruelly into those on low incomes.

Ontario, as of July 1, will probably have the lowest minimum wage in Canada with the exception of Newfoundland and PEI. Interesting. The richest province and almost the poorest minimum wage in the country.

My question was, I think, a straightforward one and to quote it exactly: “Would the minister tell the House when workers can expect an increase in the minimum wage in the province of Ontario, which is currently one of the lowest in Canada, and can the minister assure the House that waitresses will not be discriminated against by way of a lower rate than those of other workers?” The question couldn’t be any clearer and is really not out of line with the position the minister herself is reputed to have made in a cabinet submission on September 24, 1976. That question outlined the problem, and I quote from that submission:

“Page 1: Wages and prices have continued to increase since the $2.65 per hour minimum rate was introduced on March 15, 1976. By January, 1977, the ratio of the minimum wage to average hourly earnings in manufacturing will be lower than at the time of the two previous revisions. Also the purchasing power of the current minimum wage has continued to decline at the rate of about seven per cent a year.”

It went on to say under a heading of change in wage rates: “To restore the minimum to 46 per cent of average hourly earnings in manufacturing would require an increase of 25 to 30 cents” -- that’s up to $2.95 an hour -- “by January and 30 to 35 cents by February 1977.”

It goes on further on page six of that submission to talk about the fact “that rates of pay of up to $3.50 per hour are exempt from the guidelines and, therefore, would not have any impact on Ontario’s minimum wage except to the extent that the exemption creates a pressure to raise the minimum to the $3.50 per hour level.”

What was the minister’s reply? I want to quote directly from the Instant Hansard.

Mr. Lupusella: You’ve got a big mouth.

Hon. B. Stephenson: About the same as yours.

Mr. Mackenzie: She said: “If the hon. member is suggesting that we shall move to the level suggested by his leader during the election” -- and then, after a couple of interjections, “I can tell him that, as soon as the productivity of every single individual in this province improves to an equitable level, we’ll be pleased to do so, particularly with the productivity of the members of the House.”

Mr. Cassidy: Shame! The minister is a real disappointment. She came in with snob credentials and she has blown them.

Mr. Mackenzie: That was no answer at all. I went back and read her speech to some management-labour people in London on June 3. I would have thought that she would have got rid of all her venom in that particular speech when the accused our leader of playing the fool over the minimum wage question. I suggest that somebody else has been playing the fool regularly in the House on this.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Oh, that is an absolute falsehood.

Mr. Deans: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Mackenzie: It’s simply the reaction --

Mr. Deans: Withdraw.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I will withdraw the word “falsehood,” Mr. Speaker, but that is not what I said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the minister has withdrawn that word.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want time taken out of my period here. I could read the quote from her speech but we can all get it. I have it in front of me. The minister went on then to prattle about productivity. While this also had nothing to do whatsoever with the question I’d asked, it was, nevertheless, also totally phoney. I went to Statistics Canada and dug out some of the productivity per man-hour work figures and Ontario was probably the best in Canada.

I read with interest a remark of one of her own cabinet colleagues, the Minister for Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), in a submission in Ontario Business News. He said: “It is quite evident that our plant productivity level is at least equal to that of any other North American area.”

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Germa: Why do you downgrade the working class? Aristocrat!

Hon. B. Stephenson: Oh, really.

Mr. Lupusella: That’s why she will never understand.

Mr. Mackenzie: She questions productivity of members of this House. That also has no connection whatsoever with the question that I asked in the House. I think most of the members of this House should be respected for the efforts they’ve put into it. Most of us don’t have a wealthy practice to back us up.

Hon. B. Stephenson: A what?

Mr. Lewis: A wealthy practice.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I don’t have a practice any more.

Mr. Mackenzie: My understanding of questions in this House is that, as long as they’re honest and straightforward, they deserve an answer. They don’t deserve disrespect, they don’t deserve arrogance and they don’t deserve smart-alec replies, which is what we’re continually getting from this minister. I find it repugnant.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It pains me to see the members of the third party as hypersensitive as they are this evening.

Interjections.

Mr. Deans: We are pained by you continually.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The question which was raised this afternoon was a straightforward question. It was unfortunate that the interjections at my slight attempts of humour were such and the vocal responses so noisy that they inhibited any further response on my part.

Mr. McClellan: Very slight.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I was all the point of standing to answer again when the Speaker was standing constantly, attempting to quell the roar that was occurring from the benches across the floor.

Mr. Lupusella: That is your practice.

Hon. B. Stephenson: However, the minimum wage is a matter of great concern to me as the Minister of Labour. It has been a matter of concern and it continues to be a matter of concern, particularly when there are --

Ms. Cassidy: We noticed that yesterday.

[10:30]

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- a number of eminent economists and sociologists and other experts in the field who are continuously at this time telling us that the minimum wage is an inappropriate mechanism for redistribution of wealth. I think it is a mechanism which we have in place at this time. It is not one that I think that we can destroy or that we can do away with.

There has been a great deal of work done on the minimum wage in the province of Ontario. A good deal of research goes into any revision of the minimum wage and that research is at the moment ongoing.

Mr. MacDonald: That is obfuscation.

Mr. Cassidy: You have had a year and a half to do that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yesterday there was a very good meeting and a very fruitful meeting -- Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting at times if the members across the floor were to listen to what was being said so that indeed there might be some understanding of what it is we are trying to do.

Mr. MacDonald: We are, unless you provoke us.

Mr. Mackenzie: When are you going to start answering?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yesterday there was a very fruitful meeting that was held with an association of women who work as waitresses in various establishments. They made some excellent recommendations that I think are very useful and which we are going to be considering very seriously.

Mr. Deans: When?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Immediately, as we always do.

Mr. MacDonald: Sit on it.

Hon. B. Stephenson: And, indeed, they also made some suggestions for hearings which I think would be of a great deal of help in clarifying the problems that seem to be associated with this very contentious issue of the minimum wage.

Mr. Cassidy: Always tomorrow; never today.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The minimum wage in the province of Ontario, as I have said before, applies to seven per cent of the working population of this province. It does have an effect on all other wages, particularly those wages of the non-unionized group within the province of Ontario. I think we must be extremely careful that, in moving the minimum wage, we do not minimize job opportunities for the working people of this province, nor that we produce any great hazard to the amounts of money which employers are required to pay and still attempt to remain competitive in this province.

Mr. Cassidy: No action; just a statement.

Hon. B. Stephenson: We are in the process of finalizing the research on revision of the minimum wage this year. I would hope that in the not too distant future we shall be able to make some statement in this House regarding this, but I hope before that time that we will have an opportunity to hear from both employers and employees about problems related to the minimum wage, which I think have not been explored as thoroughly as they should be.

Mr. Bounsall: Your research is done the other way.

Mr. Cassidy: Speak to people living on the wage.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The minimum wage in the province of Ontario is at the present time one of the lowest in the country, but it does indeed have a different component. The group to which the minimum wage applies has different constituents than the groups to which it applies in other provinces and other jurisdictions in this country. There are other considerations.

Mr. Deans: They are people having to live in this society.

Mr. Cassidy: Higher living costs too.

Mr. Bounsall: Gas bills.

Mr. Deans: Do they get special prices?

Hon. B. Stephenson: There are many other considerations that must indeed come to mind in any examination of the minimum wage and it is my intention to move as rapidly as possible to ensure that the minimum wage in this province provides people with an adequate income to provide the necessities of life and that it will not in any way inhibit the growth of job opportunities for people in the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege.

During the exchange which took place, my colleague from Hamilton East said that in a speech on Friday, June 3, 1977, the Minister of Labour had said I played the fool. The Minister of Labour responded angrily that that was “an absolute falsehood,” and when challenged, said she would withdraw the use of the term “falsehood.”

On page five of her speech on Friday, June 3, 1977, having just asked how many jobs would be lost if our minimum wage proposal would be introduced and not being able to estimate it, she said: “Perhaps the wise Mr. Lewis can. Speaking of wisdom, it is proverbial that a wise man knows how to play the fool on occasion. Mr. Lewis has proven his wisdom again.”

In other words, what my colleague from Hamilton East said was absolutely and entirely accurate.

We don’t want to have to follow the minister with a truth squad in this province --

Mr. McClellan: Or in this House.

Mr. Lewis: -- but sometimes she forces us to.

My integrity having been saved again, I thank you for allowing me the privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. I consider it completely flattering that the members of the third party read every single word of all of my speeches, and I apologize that I had forgotten that I had used that phrase.

Mr. Cassidy: You have been guilty of this before.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I consider it absolutely flattering.

Mr. MacDonald: Your words were quoted to you to catch you up in your false denials.

Mr. Eaton: The minister’s was a pretty accurate statement.

Mr. Lewis: We are watching you like proverbial hawks.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, you are, indeed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried.

The House adjourned at 10:35 p.m.