Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ENERGY CONFERENCE

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to report on the meetings yesterday, and then I have another brief statement related to the situation in Mississauga.

With respect to the discussions in Ottawa, I am sure most members spent their day off glued to the television sets. I can’t really add too much to what was discussed in public, in that the discussions at the Prime Minister’s residence during and after lunch were really quite consistent with what was said during the public part of the meeting.

From the Ontario standpoint, the question of price, as is obvious from the press reports, is not settled; there is no agreement, with points of view varying from one end of the spectrum to the other. In terms of some of the areas where I think there was some consensus -- the general objective of energy self-sufficiency, the question of some form of consumer protection, the potential of the proposed energy bank, and the whole question of conservation -- on these matters I think it’s fair to state that in terms of principle there was fairly genuine agreement.

The details of all these proposals, as presented by the government of Canada, are in the process of further discussion and negotiation. The question of price, which is very fundamental to this whole debate, is being pursued by the Prime Minister of Canada, together with, I guess separately really, the Premiers of the three producing provinces.

I have no idea when any sort of decision will be made, but I sensed the government of Canada was anxious to come to a conclusion on the question of price as soon as possible. I can’t speculate as to when that may be. The officials from the various ministries, in terms of the conservation aspect, the potential of the energy bank, and the stated objectives of energy self-sufficiency, will work on these matters I would think for the next several weeks.

MISSISSAUGA TRAIN FIRE

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the situation in Mississauga, I had hoped the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) would be here to make a report but he is at present on the site. I was speaking to him just before entering the House, which is why I’m just a little out of breath.

I would like to tell the House as much as I can in general terms and at the same time suggest to the members opposite that if they have questions on some aspects they might be directed to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) and some to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell). The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle) has a statement to make with respect to the transportation aspect.

As of just a few moments ago, the decision was made to alter the areas where people have been evacuated, to come now roughly to the lines of Cawthra Road on the east, Burnhamthorpe Road on the north, and Erin Mills Parkway on the west, with Lake Ontario being the southern boundary. There is some expectation, but it has not been determined yet, that perhaps later on this afternoon it will be the area from the QEW on the south, probably with the same perimeters on the east and west, and certainly Burnhamthorpe Road on the north, but this may be -altered later on today.

I think the likelihood is very high that the people on the scene will be suggesting the area contained within those boundaries be maintained over this coming evening, with the expectation this can be altered tomorrow. The concerns that still exist relate to the amount of chlorine still in the one tanker. They are in the process now of sealing the tank itself. I think the feeling by the experts there -- and I certainly support any decision they make -- which some might say is just a little more cautious than it needs to be although I think in situations of this nature that’s the intelligent thing to do, is that they are in the process of sealing this and they don’t want to alter the boundaries, other than the ones I’ve mentioned, until that is completed.

Apparently, on investigation this morning they discovered that a percentage -- and no one can accurately define what the percentage is -- of the contents of the chlorine tanker has gone. The best estimate is it went at the same time as the explosion itself. The advice of the scientists and others who were there is this would create no potential health hazards; it would be dissipated. They are left with a tanker with perhaps a third or 40 per cent, no one is exactly sure of the contents, and they won’t be able to judge this until the seal is on.

I would like to take this opportunity, because I was there last evening, to make one or two general observations about the people of Mississauga, their fire department, their police forces, the Red Cross, their municipal officials, together with the OPP. I think the people, all of them, were singularly successful in dealing with a potentially hazardous situation in a way that brings credit to all of those who were concerned.

I met some of the news media from south of the border, who are here in some numbers and we had some discussion. People were literally amazed that we could have an evacuation of a city of this size with the efficiency and the lack of confusion or difficulty that was experienced in that community on Sunday.

It speaks very well, as well, of the community generally. While it’s too early to make any guesses, it is unlike situations, without naming jurisdictions, where incidents of this kind have happened on occasion in some other parts of the world -- areas of flooding or evacuations from potential hurricane areas -- in that so far perhaps only one or two incidents of burglary or breaking and entering have occurred. While it’s still too early to tell, because people haven’t returned to their homes, I really think this is an extremely encouraging aspect of this particular incident.

This is the most up-to-date information I can share with the members of the Legislature. I would like to repeat that the decision has been made in the last hour that the evacuation area is to be shrunk, for the time being, to Cawthra Road, the Lakeshore, Erin Mills on the west and Burnhamthorpe on the north.

The Attorney General may be here later on. He has spent a great deal of his time at the site. He is at present there co-ordinating the Ontario government’s involvement in this particular situation. The Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Health and their officials have also been very deeply involved. It is a tremendous example of how things can work efficiently and with sensitivity when one gets these various groups working together with a stated objective. I say, once again, I wish to extend my appreciation to all of those citizens who have made this particular situation tolerable in terms of the general public.

Mr. S. Smith: I wonder if I might just add a few words of commendation to those of the Premier with regard to the Mississauga situation. I have been very impressed, as I’m sure all members have been, by the behaviour of the citizens of the area, the government of the area, the police, the hospital, and ambulance workers, the firefighters and the scientists. I want to pay tribute to everybody who cooperated in this singularly successful venture. Fortunately, it looks as though it will go without serious incidents in terms of human health. And that’s wonderful news.

I also feel I would like to pay some degree of tribute to the Solicitor General who, as far as I could make out, was on the scene helping to co-ordinate matters. Since it went well and since we would be likely to criticize him if it had not gone well, I think he deserves some commendation for the fact that it did go well.

I pay tribute to the people as well.

Mr. Cassidy: I was in Mississauga for some time yesterday and had the chance to observe at first hand the way with which the emergency was being handled by the police, the firefighters of Mississauga and of Peel county, as well as the OPP, the RCMP and almost every other governmental authority involved.

I too want to say that the foresight with which the Peel regional police had prepared for an unknown emergency like this one, the speed with which Chief Burroughs and the rest of the force were able to put that into force, the manner in which the various authorities, including the firefighters, maintained their calm and discipline over the course of a very difficult situation, and the sheer feat of evacuating 240,000 people in the course of 24 hours from Mississauga were quite extraordinary.

I think that tribute should be given both to the people who carried it out and also to all of the citizens of Mississauga who cheerfully endured the difficulties that were involved, who did what they had to do, who moved out quickly and in an orderly fashion and who put up with the hardships in the last couple of days. It says something about this province and the people of this province, both the forces of the authorities and also the citizens, that we could have succeeded in doing this. I hope this kind of emergency doesn’t have to be responded to again. I hope we can avoid it in the future.

[2:15]

Mr. Kennedy: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might be permitted to endorse the comments we have heard from the Premier and the leaders of the opposition parties. Certainly, it would be remiss not to join in their accolades to the agencies involved: the police, the firemen and those who moved the patients and the elderly from their accommodation with such tenderness and care that it touched everyone. It was done in a manner unprecedented in a civilian evacuation. I do indeed wish to add my commendation and to pay tribute to the care and to the patience and cheerfulness which the people exhibited who were put through this great inconvenience.

There are times in which I wish question period could be developed into a discussion period or a policy period, but that is the way the rules are here. Perhaps I will have a question or two with respect to the current situation later in the question period. Again I add my commendation to those people in the area of Mississauga who were affected by this disaster and to the ministries involved who were there in force in a calm, orderly display of efficiency that was matched by those who responded locally.

We do look forward to these inquiries, both federally and provincially, which I hope will ensure that such an incident never occurs anywhere again in this Dominion of Canada.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I too would like to associate myself with the remarks of the Premier, and the leaders of the opposition parties and my colleague from Mississauga South.

As a person who was displaced during this crisis and had to move away from my home, I can appreciate the concern of the many people from Mississauga who find themselves in these circumstances. When one visits, as I did, some of the centres that were set aside for them -- for example, the International Centre, where some 1,500 people are acting in a very responsible fashion, recognizing that everything that was being done was done for their benefit -- one finds we have had little or no disturbance from the people while this was happening.

I would like to commend, as the Leader of the Opposition has done, those bodies associated with Mississauga and, in particular, Peel region, that have handled this crisis in a very responsible way. It makes me, as I am sure it does my brother member for Mississauga South, very proud to represent that area.

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), I would like to advise the House of the status of the federal legislation proposed for the regulation of the transportation of dangerous goods.

Since 1976, the transportation of dangerous goods secretariat of Transport Canada has had under development a federal act and code of regulations to govern the transportation of dangerous goods by rail, air, water and highway modes of transportation.

The secretariat’s efforts were undertaken at the request and with the continuing cooperation of both industry and the provincial ministries of transportation for the purpose of ensuring the uniform application of dangerous goods regulations to movements across the country, to movements between Canada and other countries and the interchange of freight between the modes of transportation.

The proposed federal system would regulate the packaging and container standards, labelling, storage and transportation of dangerous goods; prescribe documentation requirements for the movement of such goods; provide emergency information, procedures and authority regarding dangerous goods transportation incidents, and prescribe penalties and liabilities for the contravention of the proposed regulatory provisions.

As part of this comprehensive approach, the secretariat, as of July 3 of this year, put into operation an around-the-clock emergency information centre to provide technical advice and assistance and help co-ordinate the notification of emergency agencies and authorities in the event of emergency situations.

As members of this House may already be aware, the draft federal act was introduced in Parliament in May 1978 as Bill C-53 and reintroduced in November 1978 as Bill C-17. However, it died on the federal Order Paper at dissolution last spring.

In this connection, I have been advised by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications that the new federal Minister of Transport, the Honourable Don Mazankowski, speaking to the ministers responsible for transportation and highway safety in Regina on September 20 last, said Bill C-17 will be reintroduced in Parliament in the current session.

I further understand that Mr. Mazankowski, in response to questions raised in Parliament yesterday, said he would reintroduce the bill with amendments within the next week or 10 days. With this in mind, I might therefore advise the House of the status of three other elements critical to the full implementation of this proposed federal system of regulation.

First, I would note that the proposed federal act and code of regulations are being developed as separate and distinct instruments. The aim, among other things, is to provide the capability to implement the code under federal administrative procedures with provincial co-operation. In this regard, I believe it is most important to tell you the code of regulations is currently in a third draft state of revision, awaiting industry comment prior to finalization.

In Regina, the dangerous goods secretariat forecast the code would be finalized in the summer of 1980. Under the present circumstances, however, and in view of the advanced state of the code development, I would like to assure the House that this government will be looking into ways of advancing that schedule.

Second, it must be appreciated that by virtue of our constitution this is a most difficult area of overlapping jurisdictions. Recognizing this factor, the House amended the Highway Traffic Act in preparation for the implementation of the proposed federal code as it relates to those areas within provincial jurisdiction.

Third, and finally, I should emphasize that the federal, provincial and municipal governments will need, individually and jointly, to make a large number of arrangements concerning the administration, enforcement and funding of the system.

Although I cannot report to you any specific arrangements made at this date, I can tell you this government has such matters under consideration and that the present wording of the draft federal act specifically contemplates formal federal-provincial agreements regarding shared responsibilities and the apportionment of the costs of the implementation, administration, enforcement, training requirements and other matters necessary for implementation of the act and its code of regulations.

MAPLEHURST CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX

Hon. Mr. Walker: I am sorry I do not have copies of this statement for members of the House. It has just been drafted at this moment.

I have just returned from the Maplehurst Correctional Centre in Milton where I went early today to apprise myself of the damage to facilities and details of the incident which occurred there last night. I am now in a position to inform honourable members concerning this disturbance.

At approximately 7:45 p.m. last night, 107 inmates of the Maplehurst correctional complex were watching the monthly movie in the gymnasium when they suddenly began to throw chairs around. Within minutes, a full-scale rampage was launched in the gymnasium resulting in damage to facilities and equipment. This damage is estimated to have been in excess of $50,000. During this spree of wilful damage, washroom fixtures, windows, lights and chairs were smashed. The major damage involved the wilful destruction of a wide variety of recreational equipment, including musical instruments and sports equipment, such as pool tables and ping pong tables.

At the height of the confusion, 18 inmates battered their way through a door to a power and heating equipment room and then through another door to the roof of the building from which they leaped to the ground and escaped. I understand seven of these escapees have already been recaptured.

When the incident erupted, supervisory staff withdrew from the gymnasium and were joined by other staff who secured the exits from the gymnasium area. One staff mender, a recreation officer, who was acting as projectionist for the movie, was trapped in the projection room. Inmates hammered at the door and damaged it seriously in attempting to reach him. Fortunately, in the midst of the chaos, some inmates chose to act responsibly. They intervened on behalf of the recreation officer and escorted him from the projection room and eventually led him to safety.

Shortly after nine o’clock, or approximately one hour and 20 minutes after the incident had begun, staff had restored order. Subsequently, a total of 71 inmates were escorted from the medium security institution at Milton and dispersed to two maximum security institutions in Metropolitan Toronto.

We believe the incident was an act of retaliation by inmates of the correctional centre against staff for taking disciplinary action against four inmates earlier in the day. Following a sports competition, four inmates attacked another inmate in a washroom, resulting in an injury which necessitated the amputation of part of a finger. Police were called in to investigate that incident and we anticipate the laying of criminal charges against four inmates in connection with that incident.

I am pleased to report that the staff at Maplehurst Correctional Centre did an outstanding job in bringing this potentially very dangerous situation last night under control with no injury to inmates or to staff.

I would also like to thank the Halton regional police and the Ontario Provincial Police, who responded quickly to remain on standby should they be needed. Maplehurst staff controlled the situation in the institution without the use of police, but we were most appreciative of the support that their presence provided outside the institution.

As honourable members will be aware, especially those who served on the committee that considered my ministry’s estimates this year and visited the Maplehurst complex, this is a modern facility that provided an outstanding program for inmate population. This new institution, which opened in 1975, has accommodated more than 4,000 inmates, many of whom have benefited from the excellent academic, vocational and work opportunity programs it has offered.

In the past, inmates have treated the facilities and equipment with respect. It is therefore most unfortunate that this irresponsible rampage will limit some of the future programming not only for inmates who were not involved in the incident but also for inmates who in the future will be sent to this institution to complete their sentences.

The recreational equipment that was destroyed will not be replaced in the immediate future. In this time of financial constraint there is no money to replace it in the ministry’s budget, and I do not intend to free up funds for it. Therefore, the replacement of equipment will be largely dependent on how soon money can be raised by inmates to replace it. I realize this will impose program limitations on inmates who were not responsible for the damage. However, perhaps some of those same inmates will finally come to appreciate what it is like to be a victim of a crime.

The inmates involved in this regrettable incident will be subject to disciplinary action, and one way or another they will pay for their irresponsible acts. When recaptured, the inmates who escaped will be taken before the courts where criminal charges will be laid. The other inmates will appear before the superintendent at a hearing to determine the degree of their involvement in the incident.

I have authorized the superintendent of Maplehurst Correctional Centre to order the forfeiture of the earned remission which is standing to the credit of any inmate who was involved. The loss of remission will be proportionate to the inmate’s degree of involvement. I have further instructed the superintendent that the inmates must pay for the destruction they have caused. Inmates who were involved will forfeit any weekly incentive allowance they have standing to their credit.

Inmates who are determined to have been ringleaders in the incident will be placed in segregation with a complete loss of privileges. This means they will have restricted visiting rights, the loss of television privileges, the loss of mattresses in their cells and they will be denied library and smoking privileges. Inmates at the centre will clean up and repair the damage themselves.

In summary, the situation at the centre is calm at this time, and the programs within the adult training centre portion of the complex, which was not involved in the disturbance, are proceeding as usual.

[2:30]

As well as thanking the police for their standby assistance, I wish to express our sincere appreciation for the excellent work that has gone into the apprehension of some escapees and the search for others. I realize the police in this region were already hard pressed by the situation that resulted from the train derailment in Mississauga, and I regret the added strain on the police resources that this situation necessitated.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind the Minister of Correctional Services that standing order 26(b) definitely states a copy of any ministerial statement will be distributed to the opposition parties at or before the time the statement is made. I was conferring with the Clerk at the time you admitted you hadn’t circulated your statement. I just want to serve notice that in the future I think we should live up to that standing order.

ESL PROGRAMS

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, a point of privilege: On Friday last, while I briefly left the Legislature, the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) answered a question I had asked previously. In her response, she suggested the statements I had made were untrue. The minister’s allegations are groundless and I would like to correct the record.

I suggested on November 5 that many children requiring English as a second language in the city of North York were not receiving it. The minister reported, and I quote: “This matter has been investigated thoroughly and the answer to the allegation is that it is entirely untrue. The North York board has completed an audit of all the young people requiring English-as-a-second-language training and at the present time the staffing for English in North York has more than doubled the rate provided by the Metro formula.”

Mr. Speaker, I suggest the minister was less than thorough. In the first place, the Metro formula will not ever generate adequate teachers for English as a second language.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the honourable member’s point of privilege? If you are going to stand up here and make a prima facie case for a point of privilege, you must demonstrate at the earliest possible moment and as quickly as possible how your privileges, as a member of this assembly, have been abrogated. If you can do that, I will listen to you further.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I am correcting the record, sir.

Mr. Speaker: How?

Mr. Grande: By the minister --

Mr. Speaker: This is obviously a difference of opinion between what the member for Oakwood says and what the Minister of Education says. If this is alleged to have taken place last week, you should have raised it at the first opportunity. You said you were away from the House for a brief period of time and returned. I think you had a responsibility to correct the record last week, not now.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Would you like to challenge my ruling?

Mr. Grande: No.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, if I may, my colleague is rather polite. The point of privilege was he had been accused of lying to the chamber.

Mr. Speaker: I doubt that’s what he said, because if anybody accuses another member of telling a deliberate falsehood, I am sure any presiding officer of this House would have caught it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GAS AND OIL PRICES

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Premier with regard to yesterday’s conference: If we are to judge from the Premier’s statement today and also from the televised conference and the media report, it would appear that Ontario was successful neither from the point of view of getting our price argument across, nor from the point of view of having a redistribution of the benefits of such price increases.

Under these circumstances, although the Premier referred to the private meetings as well, is he absolutely certain nothing happened in the private meetings that might in some way mitigate this general impression of failure? If not, what does the Premier feel now remains that he can possibly do in order to influence the outcome of what the final decision will be?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that nothing happened in those private meetings that was really in any way substantially different from the public discussions. There were two aspects. One, that of the distribution of proceeds, I think in terms of what the producing provinces feel is their share or whatever they determine by way of royalty, was supported by every other province there. Ontario was the only one that raised this publicly and also at the private meetings.

I think that is going to continue to be an area of debate over the next number of years. I think it is something that is not going to go away. I would be surprised if there isn’t a decision made to have a committee, perhaps the Ministers of Finance and Treasurers of the provinces, get together to take a look at the whole question of the foundation for the equalization program and whether or not resource funds are to be considered a part of it.

Of course we would like to see that sort of study done, except I would predict the results of that study would then impose fairly substantial burdens on the federal treasury. In terms of the overall financial position of the country I think these would be difficult to sort out. But I think it is the kind of study that will have to move ahead if the distribution is to remain as is at present constituted.

I am sorry to take so long but it is an important issue. One of the points made by the producing provinces, which has some validity in terms of their perspective, is that their present royalty of roughly 45 per cent applies to those depleting resources such as the conventional crude. When it comes to the synthetics or the crude from the tar sands, the royalty or tax, or whatever way one would wish to describe it, moves down to a figure that is probably closer to 15 per cent.

That hasn’t yet been defined, and I think it is a little early. But their argument -- just so the members will know -- is that their 45 per cent royalty on the conventional sources is depleting, it is diminishing over a period of years. They argue that their rate of return, or however we wish to describe it, on the synthetics would be substantially less.

I don’t think that answers what I think is a broader problem. This is not just in terms of what money might be going in one direction or another, but in terms really of one of the basic ingredients of Canada. The counter-arguments -- and you saw it, those of you who watched -- were the very strong statements from every other provincial jurisdiction with respect to the resource sector. There were some Premiers who had reservations on some aspects of price, but on the question of resource responsibility there was just no other Premier -- and I guess this hasn’t altered in the last 10 to 15 years -- who was prepared to accept anything less than total provincial control.

In terms of price, I think it is premature to debate that question. I think there will be an opportunity here when that decision is made. One has to assess the results of these things not just on the two particular items but on some of the broader implications. We were arguing very strenuously for a number of the “ifs” and “buts” to be in place prior to a price decision.

I think it is fair to state, and I am not in any way being critical, that a lot of other first ministers yesterday said, “We agree to moving towards world price. What are you going to do about this situation?” The maritime provinces, for instance, referred to electricity, because so much of their generating capacity is fuelled by imported oil. I am totally sympathetic with their situation. Their hydro rates I guess are more than double ours, and the impact there is very severe.

Our approach has been, let’s put the “buts” in place. Let’s have a committed policy for national energy security or self-sufficiency, some rationale in terms of conservation, some program in terms of protection of the consumer and some -- we didn’t propose a bank, we proposed a fund, and out of this emerged a proposal for a bank.

The other part that I think in the long run has some genuine pluses for this province -- for all of us, including the manufacturing sector -- while there is no agreement, is the view as represented by the government of Canada, and not disputed by the province of Alberta or the other producing provinces, that a figure less than Chicago or world price, in general terms, would be acceptable. The 90 per cent figure has been suggested. I would argue, obviously, for a lower figure. But this does indicate a shift from the discussions of four years ago. On the question of price, I can’t be any more helpful than I have been. Everybody knows Ontario’s point of view. I can assure the House, because I sat there while there was some brief discussion, that there was no agreement concluded on price with the producing provinces as of when I left Sussex Drive -- and I was the last one to leave -- about 6:05 last evening.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, I think it would appear from the Premier’s answer in terms both of price and the redistribution of the money that comes with the higher price, Ontario has not succeeded in persuading a single province to our point of view.

Keeping in mind that in Ontario we have had the largest increase of any province in unemployment during the month of October, a seasonally adjusted increase of 31,000 on our unemployment rolls -- and we’re just heading into the winter -- what is the Premier’s strategy to deal with this increasing unemployment this winter, especially now that high interest rates, high energy prices and a drain from our economy as well will one pile upon the other, creating grave difficulty for our citizens?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I pointed out some of the concerns. I’m not being facetious but I’m sure the Leader of the Opposition hasn’t had an opportunity to read the papers we brought there on Saturday or Sunday. I’ll get both of them to him. We expressed some of these concerns in these.

I should point out, though, in fairness, while I think there was a desire -- and I can’t say this is going to happen -- on the part of some to have the price on January 1 increased by $3 rather than the $1, I am relatively optimistic. I can’t say it definitely, because we’re not part of that final decision, but the price increase will probably be only $1 on January 1.

The impact of this is then postponed until March 1. So in terms of home heating oil, a good bulk of the coming season will not be at the new price. I think it’s fair to state -- I can’t calculate in litres -- that the four cents per gallon for gasoline would take effect on March 1, not on January 1. Our papers really presented the concerns that will probably manifest themselves to a greater extent next summer than will be the case this coming spring. In other words, and I want to qualify it, I hope it will be $1 in January so that we will have the winter and spring period with the impact of that amount of money and not something in excess of that.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since it’s clear that Ontario fought the good fight on behalf of Ontario’s consumers and industry at the first ministers’ conference, but lost, can the Premier now say specifically what steps Ontario intends to take within Ontario’s own jurisdiction in order to protect consumers and to maintain the strength of our industry in the face of these very substantial increases in oil prices taking place next year and in 1981?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can assure the member we made every effort to fight the fight yesterday. I think that was obvious to everyone. I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party in terms of our own strategy -- and we’re not minimizing the potential of these impacts -- we have had in place a strategy related back really to 1974 and 1975 in terms of our own industrial economy. It’s not going to make it any easier. Anyone who suggested it is, I think, is making a fundamental miscalculation.

In spite of the problems we foresee, I think we can be sufficiently creative here. There is a sufficient strength in the economy of this province that we will continue to make progress. It’s going to be tougher, but the program that has been developed by the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has happened during the course of an increase in energy costs generally throughout Canada, and I think we’ve been successful to date.

[2:45]

I do not have any specific point to make today with respect to the potential impact on some segments of the consumer groups. When I say that, I made it very clear in our presentation, and this was supported by a number of other Premiers, that for certain segments of our society -- people on fixed incomes, senior citizens, et cetera -- there should be built in to whatever may emerge by way of national energy policy a program allowing for a sufficient amount of the funds flowing from the oil and gas industries generally, to be used to offset the impact on some consuming groups. This was one of the main points we argued in August.

I think to say at this stage that we would move unilaterally would be inappropriate; I think it is part of the considerations yesterday that the government of Canada must feel a very real obligation to deal with this issue we have raised. I sensed from what the Prime Minister said, and from what others said, that there will be a policy for some form of consumer protection related particularly to those two or three groups I have mentioned.

Mr. S. Smith: Final supplementary from me, Mr. Speaker: In view of what the Premier has said regarding equalization as a possible route for dealing with the redistribution of some of this revenue; is the Premier now prepared, in view of the fact there is no other apparent immediate solution to the redistribution problem, to remove Ontario’s agreement from the federal-provincial deal which led to the bill that is going to take away retroactively our right to equalization money that already exists? In other words, if I may simplify a somewhat wordy question, is the Premier now prepared to insist Ontario receive the money that was coming to us for the past year or so, and not have that right removed retroactively with regard to equalization?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the provincial Treasurer has answered this. I know it is very hard to explain in a way everybody would understand or agree with. The bill, and the policy as at present there, never envisaged that Ontario would be a recipient of equalization payments. That has never been the feeling. The fact that because of the existing formula, which on a technical basis doesn’t relate to resource, Ontario could be the recipient today -- and I forget the figures; they have been debated here in the House -- this to me is really sort of a negation of what was intended.

We could start to become legalistic. I think really it does offend in general terms and in policy terms what this province’s commitment has been to Canada in the sense of our participating with the other provinces of Canada. While I am not happy with what is happening in terms of distribution of oil and in terms of whatever may occur in price -- I had better withhold that judgement until I see -- I don’t think that is the kind of thing that would prompt me to say, “Well, we didn’t get it this way; let’s go back and try to get it another way.”

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition I think it is a very legitimate question to ask; but it is not something, quite honestly, that I would recommend to the Treasurer that he move on at this time.

Mr. Peterson: I want to question the Premier’s interpretation of the current fiscal arrangements act. In the judgement of a number of observers of the scene, they would argue that Ontario is entitled legally and morally, under the current arrangements because the object of that act was not concerned about per capita income, the concern was to equalize provincial revenues on a per capita basis, and increasingly by your own arguments we are morally entitled to that money.

Why wouldn’t the Premier use the most logical route ahead of him right now? He has gone in the posture of a pauper; why wouldn’t he go back now and say, “We are legally entitled to that. If other provinces are going to play that kind of game, we are going to play the game. We are legally entitled”?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for London Centre is very familiar with how the finances of this country work. I would only make this observation: Yes, legally, we are perhaps entitled --

Mr. Peterson: And morally as well.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that is where one has to make something of a judgment. One should remember that it is fine to say to the government of Canada, “We are entitled to X million dollars,” when the member must remember we are really talking about 42 per cent of those dollars having been paid for already by the taxpayers of this province. That is where the money initially came from.

If the honourable member wishes to add -- and I am sure he doesn’t; he takes a very responsible position -- to the already difficult financial problems of the government of Canada -- and I am not casting stones at the previous administration, but I wonder whether there is anyone, and the member for London Centre has made this point on many occasions, who doesn’t sense there is some genuine difficulty in terms of the extent of the federal deficit or balance of payments -- if he feels this would add to a solution by imposing this maybe moral obligation on the government of Canada, knowing that the source of those funds, 43 per cent or 44 per cent of them, is primarily from the taxpayers of Ontario, I’m just not sure that makes a lot of sense.

I don’t quarrel with the question, but it’s not something that at this stage -- I emphasize “at this stage” -- I am prepared to recommend that our Treasurer pursue.

MISSISSAUGA TRAIN FIRE

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, again a question to the Premier, in the absence of the Solicitor General (Mr. McMurtry), with regard to the Mississauga disaster. Can the Premier tell the House, if he knows the facts, what the nature of the public inquiry is going to be into the event? Can he assure us that the inquiry will be public? Can he tell us what the terms of reference will be and what input the province will have into those terms of reference, if it happens that the federal jurisdiction holds the inquiry? Basically, can he bring us up to date on how eventually the public of Ontario is going to learn the facts of this very unfortunate matter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give the Leader of the Opposition any definition of the form this inquiry may take. I was asked yesterday whether it would be a royal commission. I don’t envisage it -- although I haven’t discussed this aspect with the Attorney General -- being a royal commission in that traditional sense of the word.

I think there’s no question that a part of it, at least, would be of a public nature. I don’t think there’s any question about that. I understand the potential is there for the Canadian Transport Commission to have a public inquiry into the actual physical cause of the accident, which may have been a truck -- I don’t mean by that, another vehicle -- on one of the cars or something of that nature. I think that is one consideration.

The broader consideration as I see it, at least, is to determine in what way we can prevent this sort of situation from occurring again. I think that has to be the main thrust of whatever inquiry is conducted; to find ways and means to transport goods, which we all know have potential hazards, but which we all know, none the less, have to be moved, from one point to another.

I can’t tell the Leader of the Opposition any more than that at the moment because, quite honestly, the Attorney General has been extremely busy just trying to help with the existing situation.

I said to the press, yes, there will be an inquiry. The Attorney General has said this. I communicated my concerns to the Prime Minister yesterday, just shortly after nine o’clock, and I have his assurance that in whatever way the government of Canada can co-operate, this will be done. As to just what form it will take, I think it will be three or four days before we can make that determination.

Mr. S. Smith: I have a supplementary question to the Premier, having to do with matters of liability as a consequence of the accident. Can the Premier tell us whether the province of Ontario will be negotiating with CP Rail or taking CP to court in an effort to recover the costs which Ontario has incurred in the entire evacuation operation, as well as in the fireflghting and cleanup operation? In particular, is the Premier in a position to comment on the so-called waiver, which allegedly has been demanded of citizens of Mississauga when they request that out-of-pocket expenses be reimbursed by CP? Is this waiver something the Premier thinks should be signed by these citizens? Has he any information or any view on that matter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have only the general information that CP has offered to those people affected it will pick up hotel bills. How extensive the offer is I quite honestly don’t know. I haven’t had a chance to discuss with the Attorney General whether or not the waiver on it constitutes something that would limit CP’s liability or in any way inhibit the individual’s potential expenses in case of further damage.

With respect to our own situation, there will be, obviously, additional costs, primarily I would think because of the extra Ontario Provincial Police officers, or those who are entitled to overtime, et cetera. There has been no discussion as to what our approach is going to be on that matter. I think it will probably be two or three days before we’re in a position to make that sort of determination.

There will also be -- and I’m sure the municipality is already looking at this -- the liability in terms of the recreation commission. For instance, their building was partially destroyed, as were some of their vehicles. There will be the question of liability in terms of the firefighters and the Peel regional police. All of these things will have to be taken into account. My guess is there will be some discussion between the province and the city of Mississauga as well to see what approach we might take co-operatively.

So far, although I have had no direct communication, there has been every indication that CP, in terms of the individuals who have been affected, is making an effort to see that instant out-of-pocket expenses are reimbursed. I wouldn’t want to venture an opinion on whether the waiver is proper or not until I’ve seen it or had some consultation with the law officers of the crown.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Will the Premier undertake, on behalf of the government, to inform CP that the demand for a waiver is unreasonable and is unacceptable when people who are just beginning to plan to return to their homes have no idea of whether there has been any damage to their homes, their gardens or things that they own because of the emissions from this particular crash; when they cannot possibly measure what the long-term consequences of this particular disaster could conceivably have been on them? Will the government tell CP that the offer of meeting the expenses is welcome but that it should under no circumstances impose the condition of the waiver at this time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m obviously concerned about this aspect of it. I’m trying to look at it objectively, and I’m making no brief for CP, but if there is a desire to get money to people instantly, if that is the reaction of CP, it may be the member could be right about the waiver but perhaps we should leave the question of total liability, if there is total liability, until somewhere further down the road. That may be a wise course to take, but I know of a few situations where people are money out of pocket for Sunday and Monday night and would like to have that reimbursement. I think one has to weigh this.

This is being looked into and we will make sure, as a government, that no one is being disadvantaged; but at the same time we don’t want to inhibit, either, the transfer of some funds for those people who have a genuine need and can’t wait for two or three weeks, a month or however long it might take the favourite profession of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) to deal with it.

Mr. Kennedy: I have a supplementary. As one of the early evacuees, although we’re very interested in the details of the upcoming inquiry could we be informed of how long the removal of the chlorine from the one existing tank car -- and we’re not sure how much the contents are -- might take? Following that, when that is removed, will the people be able to return to their homes? Can the Premier give an estimate of how quickly this could take place and if this is the final thing that is keeping the people, the thousands who are still under the evacuation order, from returning?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have to be very careful. Can I phrase it this way to the member for Mississauga South: my best information is that at about 10 minutes to two, when I was talking to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), they were in the process of sealing the chlorine tanker. The guesstimate would be that will take approximately two or three hours, but I am no technician so I am not putting any time frame on it, that was the best guess.

Once the chlorine tanker is sealed the decision can be made as to whether it can be pumped out safely or whether it can be moved in some way. The best guess at this moment is that the people within the general boundaries I described, with perhaps the people south of the QEW, will be able to return later this afternoon and this evening should be the last night people within that other area are away from home. I emphasize to the member for Mississauga South that I would not want the public, or whomever, to say the Premier says everybody can go home tomorrow. I don’t think I’m in a position to make that statement yet, but that is the likelihood.

Mr. B. Newman: I have a supplementary. Will the Premier assure us that the inquiry will go beyond simply the transportation of dangerous cargo such as in this case, but will also include the overnight storage or parking of dangerous cargo, especially in built-up areas, as occurred in the Windsor situation when CPR in the first instance triple-tracked an area and then parked hazardous cargo within 100 feet of a school and within less than 50 feet of homes?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. Davis: My guess, and I can only help the honourable member to this extent at this moment, is that in any inquiry that relates to the transportation of material such as propane, chlorine, et cetera, obviously the transportation study would include the question of storage. Storage, one could argue, is when that tanker is standing still on a siding in the city of Windsor, that is on the rail line but standing still so it is temporarily stored. My guess is anybody involved in such an inquiry would in fact include that sort of situation.

GAS AND OIL PRICES

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker, related to the first ministers’ conference yesterday. Since the Premier said, and I quote, “It would be unconscionable for the federal government not to return all discretionary new revenues back to the people,” can the Premier tell the House specifically what he proposes to ensure these new federal revenues generated in Ontario by the federal government’s proposed increase in the price of oil in 1980 and 1981 are in fact returned to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think I was talking about consumers generally. I sensed from the discussions yesterday that the federal government will have a program for some cushioning in terms of some consumer groups. I can’t be any more definitive than that, but that was the general proposition that was stated.

I think it is fair to say that quite obviously the funding of the energy bank, which is obviously related to energy security or self-sufficiency, a portion of that will come out of whatever additional revenues the government of Canada receives. That in turn, in my view, is a return to the consumer from the standpoint that the consumers of this province are as vitally interested in security of supply or energy self-sufficiency as any other province in Canada, in fact probably more so than some. If those moneys that would come out of any increase and that flow to the federal government are allocated, to take another example for substitution of fuels, if there is an incentive program for substitution, then I would construe that as being a return in terms of what consumers are spending, because that is in our total interest.

It would apply as well to some conservation programs; perhaps the question of the financing of CHIP, things of that nature would in my view be legitimate expenditures for the government of Canada to make out of additional revenues they might receive.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Will we have an assurance the revenues generated for the federal government here in Ontario, and those revenues will amount to an estimated $180 million in 1980 and $760 million in 1981 through the currently proposed increases, will in fact be returned to the people of Ontario and not be given out as a new form of handout to multinational oil companies?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I quite obviously am not in a position to give that sort of guarantee because I won’t be writing whatever legislation emerges. I think the leader of the New Democratic Party has read our statement, he knows Ontario’s point of view; but for me to give a guarantee that will be the case I quite frankly can’t.

I think it is also fair to state there is another aspect of return to the consumer, we have to be quite fair about, and that is the question of the equalization of the oil price; there have to be some federal revenues to bring about this equalization.

It is not just a question of the people in Quebec or the Maritimes being the sole beneficiaries. There are one or two members -- well the two members opposite -- who are the beneficiaries of the oil equalization policy if they buy gasoline in Ottawa Centre. I mean if those two members were not buying gas there they would be paying an extra 25 cents or 30 cents a gallon right at this moment. We have to be consistent in terms of a commitment to oil price equalization, because there are 600,000 people or more in the province of Ontario who are the beneficiaries of that particular policy because they happen to be east of that mythical line from the valley down to just east of Kingston, or wherever it is.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary to the Premier concerning the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that one of the considerations in federal policy will be the possible transfer of the Canadian Home Insulation Program to the provinces: Can the Premier indicate whether or not he discussed this further with the Prime Minister? Can he indicate whether or not it is the Prime Minister’s firm intention that the program be transferred, at least administratively, to the provinces at an early opportunity, with increased funding? Is it proper to assume that this government is actively pursuing such a transfer in the interests of consumer protection and conservation in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: This was one of those items I mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition earlier, where there appeared to be some general consensus but which would take the officials of the various ministries a period of time to work out. One of them is CHIP and the possibility for its administrative transfer to the provinces, hopefully with perhaps some greater flexibility or some additional funding for the program itself.

I think I can state that if in fact we find it is administratively better for the provinces to do it, if we think we can do it more effectively, if this is to be funded out of the federal revenues, et cetera, then I think our inclination -- I say “our inclination” because we want to see the details -- would be to take on this responsibility; that is if we genuinely think we can do it more effectively.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the Premier tell us if he is aware of the fact that the new federal revenues which will be generated within Ontario by the proposed price increases would be enough to provide for a tax credit of $88 per family for people earning less than $22,000 in Ontario this coming year and $180 per family in 1981, and could still provide close to $400 million in terms of energy self-sufficiency projects in Ontario? Will the Premier of Ontario, having lost the case on price, be pressing to have this kind of money come back into Ontario; or when he says the discretionary new revenues should go back to the people will Ontario once again be left the loser in negotiations with the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say to the leader of the New Democratic Party what I said about eight minutes ago: Our point of view has been expressed. There is, I think, a general consensus -- and certainly this was part of the Prime Minister’s statement as I recall it -- that policies would be developed to provide protection for consumers. I have to tell the leader of the New Democratic Party the federal policy has been defined for us no more than that at this precise moment. I can’t tell him any more until I know some more. When I know more I will share it with him.

CLEANUP OF SPILLS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Can the Minister of the Environment explain why it is that we are now beyond 11 months from the introduction of the current Bill 24, the spills bill; and will the minister assure the House that bill will be given quick acceleration by the government in order that it receive third reading before the House rises at the end of December?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think there is no doubt that bill will be finalized before the end of this session. There are many reasons why it hasn’t been here for third reading, partly because I think many members wanted a pretty extensive debate on the bill itself, partly because the committee was preoccupied with other matters, which is fair enough. Indeed, most of the clause-by-clause consideration of that bill is completed. I suspect with only one amendment yet to be considered it will then pass speedily through the remaining stages of committee and third reading.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Will the minister not agree that the New Democratic member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) has consistently pressed the government to accelerate consideration of this bill but has met continued resistance from the Conservative side within the committee? Would the minister not agree now it is essential that the principle there be a cleanup when there is an environmental spill be adopted in legislation in Ontario, particularly after the disaster we have just had in Mississauga?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I certainly would not agree with that at all. The truth of the matter is there has been a great deal of discussion on this bill. There is no question it is a bill of which I and my ministry are particularly proud. It is good legislation. That doesn’t mean we want to cut short the debate. As a matter of fact, I recall time and time again during estimates where it was not unusual for the one party to have an hour and a quarter, the other party to have an hour and a quarter, while the Tory members out of that two and a half hours were left with 15 minutes of debate.

On no occasion, I say to the honourable member, have our Tory members taken more of the time on that committee than the members opposite.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: I would like to ask the minister is it not true that the final amendments were tabled only two weeks ago, or maybe 10 days ago, and that when the committee had time for dealing with this bill, the Conservative members were not willing to sit when I moved that we sit on a certain part?

Mr. Martel: The chairman was on vacation.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: If memory serves me correctly, it was the member for Beaches-Woodbine who wanted another delegation to make a presentation to that committee. That is one of the major reasons that bill was held up.

MAPLEHURST CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX

Mr. J. Reed: My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. I understand that the minister has been out to Maplehurst today and is launching an investigation into the disturbance that took place last night. There are three parts to this question. I wonder if the minister could either answer them today or take them under advisement and use them in the course of his investigation.

Mr. Wildman: Put them on the Order Paper.

Mr. J. Reed: First of all, could the minister tell us how this disturbance will affect the working-out program from Maplehurst which has proven to be quite successful? Has he any comment to make on that at this time or will he have in the very near future?

Second, did the minister, when he was directing that certain action be taken regarding compensation and so on, also direct that due consideration be given to those inmates who took it upon themselves to protect a staff member in that disturbance, the projectionist?

Further, will the minister investigate the design of this medium-security institution that is apparently designed in such a way that would allow such an escape to take place?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I think I could reply to the three questions at this moment. I would say to the member for Halton-Burlington with respect to the program of community service being afforded by Maplehurst centre, although it has ceased today we expect it will resume very shortly. I will say most of the programs -- in fact all of the adult training programs -- in the centre continued on today without interruption when calm had been fully restored. We do expect the programs to resume certainly by the first part of next week. They do provide a great deal of service to the area communities.

The second question related to the individuals who gathered around to surround the projectionist to protect him from the mob at that moment in time. I would say those people have been identified and will not in any way be affected by any reprisals that are taken at the institution by the administration.

The third question is that of design. It is a medium-security facility, and we are now going to reassess the whole question of the security at that facility. This is generally in line with a growing preponderance of heavier-term individuals which is causing some pressure within our system. We will certainly be looking at the security aspects of that facility.

Mr. J. Reed: Supplementary: Is the minister indicating by that reaction to the third part of that question that indeed the institution is being used for the serving of sentences beyond its original design and beyond its original concept?

Hon. Mr. Walker: No, not beyond its original concept. In the period of the last five years the people who now remain in our institutions tend to be more hard core. At one point they were diluted, so to speak, by easier-term inmates, who have a sedative effect on the operation of the institution. Certainly, there is no question of it at this time.

[3:15]

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question: I was very worried about the minister’s statement that four charges will be laid. Will he explain to the House what he means by that? Is he being presumptuous or do the crown attorneys or the justices of the peace still have something to do with whether or not charges are accepted against people?

Hon. Mr. Walker: We have been advised that charges will be laid against the inmates who were involved. The inmate who was attacked has had discussions with the police and the police are laying charges.

Mr. Renwick: The minister doesn’t understand the rudiments of law. I don’t know where he took his law.

J. D. CARRIER LAYOFFS

Mr. Mackenzie: A question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism: Can the minister explain to the House why, in view of a $2-million loan guaranteed by the ODC to J. D. Carrier Shoe Company Limited for 1978-79, which was on the basis of an expansion to provide 195 new jobs in one year and 470 jobs within five years, 1,400 footwear employees were permanently laid off last Friday? Can he tell us why there was not a statement? Can he tell the House whether or not he was informed in advance? Can he say what kind of discussions he was involved in that would protect the workers and the $2-million investment?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not sure how many months ago ODC gave some assistance. Carrier had quite a fair degree of capital put up by the principals involved in the company. It is fairly well backed and its backing included some from the banks, which had also carefully reviewed the situation. A combination of circumstances, including a simple downturn in the market of more monumental proportions than they had anticipated, caused Carrier to get into some degree of difficulty.

At the present time there are trustees and receivers in the operation. We have contacted them, and of course they contacted us as a creditor. Our indication to them was that we would prefer to see arrangements made which would maintain the jobs. We preferred that one of two things happened: either the operation would be purchased by someone or adequate refinancing would be made available to keep it going.

ODC reports to me they still believe that in the long term J. D. Carrier Shoe Company Limited does have a fairly decent hope of success. In order to get over the short term I have encouraged ODC to be as lenient a creditor as possible. I’d like to ensure that either a new purchaser can come in or that the current operators get whatever leniency they require from ODC in order to permit them to continue to operate.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: I fail to understand the minister. It doesn’t sound to me as if they had any discussions at all while this was going on, or in advance.

I am wondering if the minister can tell the House what is being done to protect the workers in this case? Can he inform the House whether or not he was aware of the long history of very unacceptable labour relations of this company when the loan was approved? Can he say whether any monitoring was done of this company when they disposed of the only two plants they had taken over where the workers had a contract within the last year? Just what is going on in the case of J. D. Carrier Shoe Company Limited and the loan we have given them?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: When Ontario Development Corporation reviews these loans -- and I remind the member it’s a decision made by the ODC board on the recommendation of staff -- it does it quite properly on a straight businesslike basis. They assess the market. They assess the financial viability of the firm. They also are interested to see whether banks and other financial institutions are prepared to stand behind the company and the degree to which the principals are prepared to stand behind the company.

Labour relations are traditionally not something I would expect ODC to look into, except to the extent it might indicate some basic instability or some basic problem which would affect long-term profitability.

Mr. Cassidy: Hear no evil, see no evil.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: ODC monitors its loans. Our field staff is out there monitoring the progress of its loans all the time. I think I will conclude by saying yes, we have monitored the situation from the time the loan was given right up until today, and we are continuing to do everything we can to make sure the employees are protected.

EXPLOSION SUPPRESSION

Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. In view of the near-catastrophic accident in Mississauga this last weekend, and in view of the fact we have a commercially-available Canadian product called Explosafe, an explosion suppressant system manufactured here in Rexdale by Vulcan Industrial Packaging Limited, which in all probability would have prevented the tank cars carrying the propane and butane from exploding; would the Premier undertake during the course of the provincial inquiry to investigate the potential use of Explosafe to equip tank cars carrying potentially explosive hazardous chemicals in order to prevent future disasters of this kind?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am --

Mr. Martel: A short answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Why? I can assure the --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh so this is it; this material the member has sent across to me. There are some days I could send this across the House.

Mr. Martel: Don’t drink it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can assure the member for York West I will ensure this particular suggestion is brought before whatever inquiry is developed.

I notice the plant is located in the very favoured community of Rexdale. The only observation I would make is I hope there are a number of employees there who live in Brampton, but whether there are or not I certainly will bring this to the attention of whatever inquiry is conducted.

MARGARINE PRODUCTS

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, but perhaps the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Drea) might be interested as well.

Has the Minister of Agriculture and Food contacted his counterpart in Ottawa concerning the study that was done by that ministry in Ottawa in regard to margarine, which indicated that over half of the margarine being produced contained between 25 and 40 per cent fatty substances which are of concern to people who are on high-risk heart attack types of diets? Has he contacted the minister and has he made that list of margarine available to you?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: We have been well aware of this for quite a number of years. No, I haven’t contacted the minister.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am sorry, all I caught is that the minister is aware of it. Has he asked the federal minister to make this list available so the consumers of Ontario will know what products could be injurious to their health? Surely as minister here he is concerned that that information be made available.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: My answer to the honourable member firstly was we have been aware of the fat content. The medical people, everybody have all been aware of the percentage for a great number of years.

Mr. M. Davidson: The consumer isn’t. What are you doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: My final answer to the honourable member was no, I have not contacted the federal Minister of Agriculture.

Mr T. P. Reid: One further supplementary: In view of the importance of this matter, will the minister publish a list of those margarine products high in fatty substance so the people of the province will know; or as an alternative will he impress upon his kissing cousin in Ottawa that he should make that study available? Again, it was paid for with taxpayers’ money and they have a right to know.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: We will look at the proposal.

TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development concerning his statement earlier today on the movement of dangerous goods. Is he aware that the report of the Ontario select committee on the highway transportation of goods recognizes that once federal legislation on the transportation of dangerous substances is in place the province will have to react quickly?

Furthermore, is the minister aware that the Minister of Transportation and Communications of this province (Mr. Snow), in a letter to his federal counterpart in February 1977, recognizes that the province will have to enact complementary legislation to, in his words, “give uniform application to the federal regulations across Canada and with respect to all modes of transportation”?

If so, can the minister assure the House that the moment the federal legislation is in place there will be provincial legislation coming forth under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to assure that the complementary legislation is in place in this province -- preferably before the House adjourns if this is possible -- so that Ontario citizens can be protected against dangerous goods being transported on Ontario highways?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, in my statement today I did indicate that in 1977 Bill 85, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, was passed to make sure this legislation would complement the federal legislation if and when it would pass.

I believe this province has a good record and has co-operated fully. It was mentioned again in the statement in Regina. This was brought to the attention of the federal minister. So I believe everything has been done as far as the province is concerned.

Mr. Philip: By way of supplementary, if everything has been done then the recent statements by the Minister of Transportation and Communications seemed to be in conflict with this. Is the minister aware of the reports coming from within the trucking industry that in spite of the passage of Bill 89 in June of this year there are still unregulated carriers carrying dangerous goods on Ontario highways without authorization?

Can this minister, as the co-ordinating minister for the resource ministries, inform the House of what action he has taken in his capacity as a co-ordinator to co-ordinate enforcement by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Ministry of the Environment in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the minister, as well as the ministry, is well aware of what the honourable member has said, but I’ll be pleased to refer this to him.

MISSISSAUGA TRAIN FIRE

Mr. Kennedy: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Would he comment briefly on the monitoring that’s presently in place with respect to the impurities in the air in Mississauga; and could he give some indication if the freeing of the atmosphere from this toxic material, chlorine, will in fact be dependent on air currents and air movements to finally free the air of these impurities?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, there are several factors that I think must be addressed in responding to that question. Yes, we are monitoring, and have been of course since the very early hours of it. Second, we will only feel confident that our monitoring system is totally in place when we can be assured that the rail car has been sealed off. We’re confident that we’re monitoring now, but I think we must extend that to a very wide area and will do so. It’s important to get that car sealed off.

Having done that, then of course we will monitor, and particularly the pockets. As the member knows, it’s a heavy gas and we must measure the low-lying ground. We have had an awful lot of measurements there to this point in time and all of them -- and I underline that -- have been in a very low range.

If a good deal of chlorine did go up at the time of the initial explosion I’m advised that that would spread in a radius and then come back down. The radius of that would be 100 kilometres.

[3:30]

We have measured those areas of highest impingement upon the environment and we believe that they are in such low range that they’re one millionth of what might be a potential hazard. The degree of safety here is extremely high, and we are pleased to know that. It eventually comes back to ground level, and we are measuring it where we expect readings to be highest. Indeed, we have done that all through this piece, through measuring air currents, to try to put our equipment where the readings would be highest, so we could err on the side of safety. I can assure the member those readings have been extremely low on all occasions.

Members can be assured that we want to be unconditionally satisfied it is safe in that area before we agree to the return of residents.

Mr. McClellan: If I understood the Premier’s statement correctly, something in the order of 30 or 40 per cent of the chlorine gas had escaped. This represents something in the order of 30 tons of chlorine gas. My question to the minister is how quickly does the Ministry of the Environment, or some authority, intend to give us more specific details of what happened to that enormous quantity of chlorine gas?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We will be glad to supply as much detail as the member wants. In very general terms, as I understand the situation, if the vast amount of that tonnage went up in the initial early period it would do so at the same time there was an excessive amount of heat. This would give cause to believe the gas would rise to approximately 4,000 feet into the atmosphere.

It would start to disperse and spread out in that radius of 100 kilometres of which I spoke. Then because it is heavy, it would descend to ground level.

I don’t know whether or not I have been able to make that clear to the member. It goes up and disperses over a very wide area. Then we measure where, scientifically, one would expect the greatest impingement on land. We have measured that and we find it is at the safety factor I mentioned. The readings were very low; on most occasions it was so low we were not able to get a reading.

I can give more specific details, but I am not sure that doesn’t answer the honourable member’s question.

WATER POLLUTION

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question raised by the leader of the New Democratic Party on November 5, I am tabling today a report submitted to me last Friday by Dr. M. G. Fisher, medical officer of health for the Hastings and Prince Edward counties health unit.

The report deals in some detail with the history and current status of the arsenic situation related to private well water supplies and municipal water supplies, as well as the Moira River system. It outlines surveillance activities by the health unit and Ministry of the Environment staff.

I am pleased to report that the medical officer of health is satisfied, and has so advised me, that the present situation does not constitute a health hazard to the people of the area. I would assure the House, though, that ongoing surveillance will be maintained to ensure that the health of the community continues to be protected.

I am advised by my colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott), that he intends to make a statement on Thursday next on the environmental aspects of the question raised by the honourable member.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to have the assurance of the ministry, but can the minister say whether that assurance is based on extensive examination of the health of the people in the area who may be affected by the water, which has as much as 50 times the acceptable levels of arsenic because of seepage from these tailings? Have there been specific medical examinations of individuals, or is this just an assurance coming from the medical officer of health, based on general knowledge of the area?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would invite the member first to read the report. I am sending to the health critics copies which they may share with their leaders and any other interested members of their parties.

Members will see in the report that the medical officer of health is satisfied no one is drinking the water. Based on that and continued surveillance and education of the public that they shouldn’t draw their water from any of the Moira River system and other surveys done over recent years he gives me that assurance.

But I invite members to read the report. If they have any further questions at a later date I will be pleased to answer them, or if I don’t have the answers to get the answers.

MINISTER’S COMMENT

Mr. Speaker: In connection with the alleged point of privilege raised earlier by the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) and the intervention by the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) when he alleged an honourable minister had called someone a liar, or accused someone of lying, I have had an opportunity to check Hansard for last Friday, on page 4376, where the Minister of Education said, in part, “The matter has been investigated thoroughly, and the answer to the allegation is that it is entirely untrue.”

The standing order says that one member shall not accuse another member of uttering a deliberate falsehood. This always causes the chair some difficulty when an honourable member says, “that is an untruth,” which in effect can be interpreted as meaning that the honourable member lied.

I think it would clear up the whole situation if the Minister of Education would withdraw the word “untrue” and given her verbal and oratorical agility, I think she could find a better way of expressing herself than by saying that a statement made by a member of this House is “entirely untrue.” I will give the minister an opportunity.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: If the member will read my response, I think what I said was that the allegation was entirely untrue.

Mr. Speaker: That’s right. The minister can play with words all she likes, it still has the same meaning. I’m asking the honourable minister to withdraw the word “untrue.”

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is factually incorrect.

Mr. Speaker: You do withdraw the allegation that it was an untruth?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if indeed a reasonable synonym for “untrue” is “factually incorrect,” I shall withdraw “untrue.”

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

PETITION

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES REPORT

Mr. Foulds: Pursuant to standing order 33(b) of the Legislative Assembly, I have in my hand a petition signed by 20 members of the assembly, petitioning that the annual report of the Ministry of Natural Resources for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979, tabled October 11, 1979, be referred to the standing committee on resources development for such consideration of the report as the committee may determine.

MOTION

COMMITTEE MEETING

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, November 15.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions, 316, 327, 330, 331, 332, 334, 335, 338, 340 and 341 on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COUNTY OF NORTHUMBERLAND ACT

Mr. Rowe moved second reading of Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the County of Northumberland.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Charlton, on behalf of Mr. Mackenzie, moved second reading of Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Isaacs, on behalf of Mr. Mackenzie, moved second reading of Bill Pr10, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

DINORWIC METIS CORPORATION ACT

Mr. G. Taylor, on behalf of Mr. Hennessy, moved second reading of Bill Pr17, An Act to revive the Dinorwic Metis Corporation.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF CORNWALL ACT

Mr. Samis moved second reading of Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the City of Cornwall.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

COUNTY OF SIMCOE ACT

Mr. G. Taylor moved second reading of Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the County of Simcoe.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

HONING CORPORATION LIMITED ACT

Mr. Cunningham moved second reading of Bill Pr23, An Act to revive the Honing Corporation Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CO-OPERATORS LIFE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION ACT

Mr. G. Taylor, on behalf of Mr. Lane, moved second reading of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting Co-operators Life Insurance Association.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

SMITH BROTHERS JEWELLERS, LIMITED ACT

Mr. Sterling moved second reading of Bill Pr26, An Act to revive Smith Brothers Jewellers, Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

ASSUMPTION CHURCH CEMETERY ACT

Mr. Bounsall moved second reading of Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the Assumption Church Cemetery.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, a point of order: My point of order is that as the minister has called all of the orders of business on private bills except Bill Pr5 standing in my name, an Act respecting the City of Toronto, and as that bill was reported to the assembly by the standing committee on the administration of justice under the chairmanship of my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), would the minister please advise the House why it is now an exception and why that bill has not been called for second reading?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to tell my friend the member for Riverdale. There is a section in Bill Pr5 which would provide for the licensing of group homes. This section has been under discussion and negotiation between various ministries of this government and the city of Toronto.

There has been some question as to the type of licensing arrangement provided for in this bill and whether, in fact, it isn’t duplicating what is going to be done provincially. Also, in the Municipal Act amendments which have been introduced, there is provision for a piece of general legislation to allow for registration of group homes if municipalities wish to do so. Because of these negotiations and discussions, we haven’t proceeded with this bill.

We are hoping that some changes in the bill can be considered by the House before it is finally passed; I will keep my friend informed as these discussions go on.

Mr. Renwick: On my point of order, my concern is that the standing committee on the administration of justice gave consideration to this bill; the ministry was represented by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; all of the arguments put forward by the ministry were considered by that committee at the time the section was put and the section was put and passed. Undoubtedly there is a precedent somewhere that will defeat my point of order, but is it in order for the government, having gone through the equivalent of the private bills committee, the standing committee on the administration of justice, and having been given full opportunity to present its position to the committee, and then, the committee having passed the bill and having reported it to the House, to not call that bill?

Mr. Speaker: As the member for Riverdale knows, it is the responsibility of the government House leader to order the business of the House.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, may I speak with respect to that point of order, only to inquire of the government House leader whether he can assure the House that, perhaps by December 1, he will be able to advise us as to progress in other legislation concerning group homes? If that is the case, then the bill can be referred back to committee for presentation again to the House in time that its other provisions would not be lost before the expected termination of the session in mid-December.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am happy to inform my friend that it certainly is our intention to proceed with and pass Bill 173, the amendments to the Municipal Act, which contains the general legislation, and to deal with the city of Toronto concerning its private bill and suggest some remedies to this House so that bill can be passed before we prorogue.

House in committee of the whole.

CROWN TIMBER AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned consideration of Bill 77, An Act to amend the Crown Timber Act.

Mr. Chairman: Sections 1 to 4 have been carried and I believe the member for Sudbury East was speaking to section 5.

On section 5:

Mr. Martel: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to indicate at the beginning that last week --

Hon. Mr. Auld: I wonder if I could interrupt, Mr. Chairman. I think I indicated I would try to cover a number of the matters that had come up to section 4. Having touched on section 5, I wonder if this would be a good time to do so, or shall I --

Mr. Martel: Wait; I have an appointment with your colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott), at four o’clock.

I want to indicate that I was somewhat surprised at the bill. You will note last week, Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister where the promise of the Premier (Mr. Davis) was in this bill. You will remember the Bramalea charter. The minister leaped to his feet and brushed that aside. I have confidence in our Premier, though maybe those people over there don’t. When he says something I take that as gospel. Let me remind you what my friend, the Premier, said on that great night when he brought out this great charter.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Do you have it?

Mr. Martel: I’ve got the charter, I want to tell you.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Where have you been keeping it?

Mr. Martel: I keep it pinned on the wall for such an occasion as today. I only hope you will show as much confidence in the Premier as I am about to do. If one looks down the charter, it says, “A commitment to replacing at least two trees for every one harvested henceforth in Ontario and to regenerating every acre harvested.”

Mr. Germa: That’s two for one.

Mr. Martel: That’s two for one, and that means every acre in the province. When the Premier tells me that, I am so taken by it that I want to know if it is in the bill; and of course it is not.

Mr. Germa: That’s not in the bill? It can’t be.

Mr. Martel: It’s not in the bill. To rectify the problem, I want to move an amendment. In keeping with what the Premier said, in respect to section 5 I want to move an amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Martel moves that section 5a(1) of the bill be amended by inserting after the word “agreement” in the sixth line: “shall provide for the yield to be sustained on the basis that at least two trees are planted for every tree cut under the agreement and to regenerating every acre harvested.”

Mr. Roy: The Premier would be proud of you.

Mr. Martel: He would be proud of me, don’t you think? After looking at the Bramalea charter, that great night two years ago when the Premier made this commitment to Ontario, I can’t see how anyone on that side of the House could even suggest that is not an appropriate amendment for this piece of legislation.

Mr. Roy: That’s right.

Mr. Martel: Therefore, I have no choice but to move it to enshrine the Premier’s words in a piece of legislation.

Mr. Roy: I am sure that was intended but just forgotten.

Mr. Martel: Yes, just an oversight, that’s what I felt. It was just an oversight and I want to make sure that oversight is eliminated, therefore I have moved that amendment before I leave for my appointment with the Minister of the Environment. I leave that amendment and I will read with interest the minister’s comments with respect to that amendment.

I can’t see how you could even attempt to weasel out of it. I hope you wouldn’t because I would be awfully embarrassed, standing in my place tonight as one of those supporting this amendment, and having to force the Premier to vote against his own words, or his colleagues for that matter, because then that would show little faith in the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Perish the thought.

Mr. Martel: Perish the thought, you say. I am glad it is going to go through. You can call this the Martel-Davis amendment.

Unfortunately, I can’t stay around because I have a four o’clock appointment, but I will read the discussion with interest and I will be back for the vote.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment very briefly. Actually the whole purpose of section 5 is to produce sustained yields, but I am not sure the honourable member is aware there are a number of ways of regenerating.

Mr. Wildman: Was Davis aware of that?

Hon. Mr. Auld: There is natural regeneration. When man does it, I am informed that we would usually plant between 20,000 and 30,000 seeds per acre; we would usually plant between 1,000 and 1,200 seedlings per acre and the sustained yield we would expect to be somewhere between 150 and 200. On that basis and doing some fast arithmetic, the Brampton charter is very modest in a technical sense.

Mr. Martel: Then you should accept the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Auld: It certainly could not be accepted because we might downgrade our program and reduce regeneration.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, are we restricted now to speaking on the amendment? Or are we back on section 5?

Mr. Chairman: We should discuss the amendment; it is before the committee right now.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I must confess to a certain embarrassment. I am embarrassed for the Premier of this province and I am embarrassed for the Ministry of Natural Resources officials. I am embarrassed that the Premier could have made such a promise back in 1977.

Mr. Haggerty: That was an election promise.

Mr. Foulds: I am even more embarrassed he would put such a promise in writing. I am embarrassed for the Minister of Natural Resources, who today has to defend an indefensible position. As my colleague the member for Sudbury East points out the words were quite exact; there was no talk about a sensible plan for regeneration, there was no recognition that silviculture is an important and sensitive matter in the forests.

Back in 1977 it was reducing to political sloganeering perhaps one of the most important matters facing this province in one of its most important industries. The words were exact: a commitment to replacing at least two trees for every one harvested henceforth in Ontario and to regenerating every acre harvested. The wording was quite clever. It mentions nothing about the backlog that needs to be regenerated. It does not, speak to the decades in which we have not adequately undertaken reforestation, regeneration, silvicultural programs.

I recognize that the fault is not entirely with the ministry, I recognize that before the ministry took over the responsibility the record was even worse; but the Premier’s commitment on behalf of the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario, which was I assume solemnly undertaken, was to regenerate every acre harvested. Even that has not happened.

Mr. Haggerty: Not very progressive.

Mr. Foulds: That part of the promise has to make some sense. I think my colleague, the member for Sudbury East, in his own inimitable way has stumbled upon a fundamental truth, a truth that was not present in the election campaign of 1977. In his own inimitable style, my friend and colleague, the member for Sudbury East has brought before this committee in this Legislature a reminder, a very vivid reminder, of a promise not kept.

[4:00]

Mr. T. P. Reid: It’s called the Joe Clark syndrome.

Mr. Foulds: I think it is important, if we are not to debase political life in this province, and if we are not to debase fundamental matters of importance such as reforestation, that illegitimate commitments such as the one made by the Premier in 1977 should not be undertaken in a spirit of public relations in an attempt to reduce a fundamental issue to the lowest common denominator. Therefore, I would hope that the government would accept the amendment my colleague has proposed and at least make a few acts of contrition and a few acts of repentance. Maybe, just maybe, they will undertake the kind of overall reforestation and regeneration program that is necessary and not merely make glib promises on a platform in Brampton or Bramalea, or wherever it was, where one could hear over the radio tape the gasp of the Minister of Natural Resources of the time as he heard that particular commitment enunciated. One could hear, yes even so far as northwestern Ontario, one could hear out on the hustings, the gasp of despair running through the Ministry of Natural Resources.

One would hope this amendment will bring some reality and sanity to the debate on the issue. One would hope we will have no more promises that cannot be kept and that we would not have, as we had in the charter for Ontario, foolish commitments like the one made by the Premier.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, as you know I covered the Brampton charter in my opening remarks and the Premier’s promise of “two for one.” I was speculating, as I listened to my friend speak on the amendment, as to when I first raised this. I went back to Hansard, Mr. Chairman, of 12 years ago, when I was a new member in this Legislature and I was doing the estimates of the then Department of Lands and Forests. At that time we had a backlog of unregenerated forest land in the province of Ontario. In those days we couldn’t get any accurate information from the ministry. Whether or not they had it, I don’t know, but certainly I was always told by the Department of Lands and Forests that any statistics that I endeavoured to use were not accurate but they would never tell me what the real figures were. Now it seems to be conventional wisdom, if not the truth, that there are at least 100,000 acres a year that aren’t being regenerated, so that in my 12 years in the Legislature we have well over a million acres that haven’t been touched as far as regeneration is concerned.

I have a certain sympathy for the amendment, Mr. Chairman. As you know I did mention it myself in my opening remarks. Whether or not it’s an empty, frivolous gesture I don’t know. I don’t know if we should be playing games with this very important issue.

I think it does serve to underline the fact that in the past both the companies, and particularly the Ministry of Natural Resources, the former Department of Lands and Forests -- which I really shouldn’t blame, because obviously it has been those great managers of the province of Ontario, the great managers of Ontario’s resources, the Conservative government and the Conservative cabinet and the Bill Davis government, which has neglected this extremely important renewable resource.

I am not going to state what we are going to do on this amendment. As I say I feel it is important in underlining the problem. It is obviously not a practical amendment, but what I would ask the minister, before we continue on in the other sections of the bill, is if he has some comments to make as to the commitment of the province on regeneration.

I think, as was pointed out, he owes it to the Legislature and the people of Ontario, particularly in view of past history, to make a fairly extensive statement in regard to the amendments to the Crown Timber Act. I wonder if I might ask him at this time to do so.

Hon. Mr. Auld: My thanks to the member for Rainy River. If I may sum up very briefly -- and it is mainly contained, of course, in section 5, other sections of the bill as I mentioned before are primarily housekeeping -- the main purpose is to pull together all the matters relating to forest management on large company licences in one comprehensive document. I believe this will provide a more meaningful integration of harvesting and regeneration and the necessary planning.

Let me emphasize that the agreement is a contractual document that provides for more effective administration of forest management by the ministry on company areas. In particular, the ground rules of the agreement give the prescriptions, the related standards and the timing of all silvicultural practices, harvesting and regeneration included. This is a new development that is related to these agreements.

As I mentioned previously, the term of an agreement is for 20 years, and at five-year intervals, that is every five years, the annual allowable cut and the company’s performance are reviewed. Nevertheless the yearly activities, such as site preparation, regeneration and so on, are subject to auditing as they occur.

I would emphasize these activities must conform to the prescriptions and standards set out in the agreement before payment of invoices. In other words, the company does not receive any payment under our schedule until it has actually carried out the work, thus there is an immediate control each year.

As we discussed the other day, when a company has not performed the required activity the ministry will ensure the regeneration is undertaken and charge the company the full cost of so doing. Those costs may well be more than the cost to the company had the company done it as part of the larger project.

The prime concern is to ensure our forest lands are regenerated and kept productive; by signing an agreement the company is undertaking to do just that.

Initially the implementation of the agreement will evolve. I have made it clear several times that although perhaps only three companies will be involved in the first year, within five years all the pulp and paper companies will be taking part. I think actually there would be more than three companies who are prepared to sign at the present time.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Do you have a commitment to that?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think it is fair to say there are not written commitments from the roughly 11 or 12 pulp and paper companies, but we have firm commitments from at least three, perhaps more; and about three, or perhaps four, is all we feel we can undertake in the first year.

A key element of the agreement which does not exist under the present licence system in the act is the provision for the treatment of backlog, which both the honourable members have mentioned, what we call NSR or not satisfactorily regenerated land. Under these agreements a company would now be required to treat these NSR acreages at a rate of five per cent per year for a period of 20 years.

As regards penalties and incentives, I would emphasize the bill places emphasis on sustained yield and a focus on the annual allowable cut at the five-year review. The recalculation of the annual allowable cut each five years is new. It provides for greater control by the ministry and also reflects the annual changes from depletion and additions to the forests. For example, if a company overcuts its annual allowable, it must at its own cost, regenerate those lands so cut. If on the other hand it doesn’t cut all the AAC, the company must pay to the ministry damages equal to the stumpage of the uncut wood.

While these might be viewed as disincentives, the agreement provides an incentive if the company increases forest productivity or growth. Thus, if a company at its own sole cost undertakes silvicultural practices which increase growth -- such as precommercial thinning, fertilization, et cetera -- the increase in wood attributable to the treatment is available at one-tenth of the normal stumpage. This last was not provided for in the existing act.

The development of roads is vital to forest management. Although the authority to enter into an agreement for roads exists under the Public Lands Act, an incentive for a company to undertake forest management responsibilities is the provision of support in developing a road system.

One of the major problems the ministry has in its own regeneration program is related to the planning and rate of road building as it affects silvicultural treatment. Therefore the agreement provides for appropriate payments to a company to develop the road system, which will provide for general public access.

I believe all parties have available to them copies of the final draft agreement. It was developed following very lengthy discussions with members of the forest industry, as well as our own staff. The industry, for the most part, has given clear indication it realizes the necessity to integrate and improve our steps in forest management in Ontario.

Some concern has been expressed about wasteful practices and how agreements would be affected. Present regulations concerning wasteful practices will apply to an agreement area as to one under licence. One of the most probable results of having a company do the regeneration following harvesting will be to have improved utilization. Excessive slash and stump heights are two of the problems frequently encountered by our own staff when undertaking regeneration. I feel sure the companies will quickly see the benefits of minimizing slash.

Section 5 states: “The purpose of the forest management agreement is management on a sustained yield basis.” Some parts of the cutover will be occupied by permanent roads and landings. I’m told this averages about 10 per cent to 15 per cent. In other words, 10 per cent to 15 per cent of the acreage, once the forest is managed on a sustained yield basis, will be lost to fibre production because it will be used for roads and landings.

This means sustained yield requires that productivity on the remaining productive areas be at a higher level than the natural forest. I mentioned very briefly before the member for Sudbury East had to leave some of the problems which his motion produces.

[4:15]

Mr. M. N. Davison: It is not his motion.

Mr. Wildman: It was the Premier’s idea.

Mr. M. N. Davison: It was the Premier’s promise.

Hon. Mr. Auld: At the present time, I think it is fair to say, more than two trees for one are now being planted and will be planted in the future under forest management agreements in those areas where natural regeneration is not taking place or is not sufficient.

I hope that clarifies some of the matters we were touching on a week ago. We will deal with further questions about the remaining parts of section 5, if there are any, as we go along.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to repeat, any more than anybody else wants to listen to it, everything I said last week. I am still a little confused, regardless of various conversations and everything else, as to why we are going through what seems to me almost an elaborate charade. If it weren’t for specific people who were involved in this, I would think it was another charade like the Brampton charter, another smokescreen or little sideshow the government was putting on to indicate things are happening in the forest industry that in fact are not.

I look at section 25(4) of the Crown Timber Act, which says, “The minister may enter into an agreement with a licensee for the promotion and maintenance of the productivity of the licensed area.” I repeat I just wonder why we have to have section 5 all over again. I know we want the whole thing to be in a cycle and we want it to follow logically and so on, but I wonder whether what we are doing here is an absolute necessity when what we really want to accomplish is to see the work being done.

That brings me to three practical matters I want to ask the minister to respond to with regard to section 5. The first is that sections 5 and 25(4), regardless of which one we look at, provide that the minister may enter into an agreement. The minister says he has three firms which have indicated they are going to accept this provision, respond to it and take over the responsibility. The minister has indicated that within a five or six-year period all 12 or 13 of the largest companies are going to do that.

Hon. Mr. Auld: May I just interrupt for a moment? I was confused last week. The honourable member is referring to section 5 of the bill and section 25 of the agreement or of the Crown Timber Act?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Section 25 of the Crown Timber Act.

The minister has indicated that within a few years all of the companies will be accepting the responsibility for doing regeneration in the province. I must say the draft agreement provides certain healthy incentives for them to do so. One of my concerns, which I have expressed to the minister, is there aren’t many disincentives as far as I am concerned if they don’t carry out the work they have agreed to do.

The minister and his legal advisers have indicated that under the act and with an agreement the government can recover the costs. If the company does not do the regeneration, the ministry will move in and contract the work out or do it itself. The work will be done and the cost charged back to the company that didn’t do it.

As I understand the situation now, the Ministry of Natural Resources has to go in and do the work before it can claim liability against the company. A very practical question arises, one of three which I put to the minister: if the company doesn’t do the work, what guarantee do we have that the minis- try will have that work done? The minister, I am sure, will pardon my scepticism, because over the last 17 years, obviously, the ministry hasn’t done the regeneration work required. We are looking at a very real, practical problem.

What incentives are there for the companies to make these agreements, other than some of the financial incentives that are in the agreement? What happens if they don’t agree, if they decide they don’t want any part of this? For instance, what if Great Lakes decides or what if Boise Cascade or Abitibi decide they’re going to leave the responsibility for regeneration in the province up to the ministry? Of course that would be foolhardy, because they did an even worse job than the companies did previously to 1962, but what are we going to do?

Are we going to have a patchwork or a quiltwork across the province of Ontario, where a company does it in one area and the ministry does it in the next? It’s a practical concern.

The practical concern is that as this phases in the ministry phases out, and then if the company doesn’t do the work where is the ministry going to get the equipment, the people, the bodies to actually do the physical work necessary in regeneration? I think the minister would agree that this is a very difficult point, because there aren’t that many people skilled in the work or that many people around who are willing to do that kind of work, because it is hard, back-breaking work and the pay is very poor. Those are a couple of the real, practical problems as I see them.

The third one, to my mind, is even more important than the foregoing two. That is, as I understand it, the ministry is going to provide the seedlings and the money for roads, et cetera -- all these good things -- and they’re going to pay the company for doing the regeneration work.

But one of the continuing problems since the ministry has been responsible for regeneration, has been the fact there have not been sufficient funds available to carry out a complete and comprehensive regeneration program in the province.

The Brampton charter of the Premier that we’ve heard so much about today was just a great idea, I think it even bamboozled some people during that election, as it was intended to do; but where were the necessary funds to put that program into place if it wasn’t anything more than a charade and a con game aimed at the people of the province during that election? What guarantee do we have, as a Legislature, that the funds are going to be made available to pay for this program, whether it’s the companies, all 12 or 13 of them, or whether it’s the companies in concert with the ministry doing part of the work? Obviously, and we’ve heard no commitment from the minister today or last week, we in this Legislature vote funds on an annual basis. Mind you, we often vote them after they’ve already been spent, but that’s a different story. However, what kind of commitment can the minister give that the funds are going to be available for this program, and that they’re going to be available in sufficient amounts to carry out both the regeneration on a sustained yield basis and to pick up the backlog of five per cent a year across the province, which is a fair chunk. If there is roughly $1.5 billion in 12 years, there’s got to be at least another $1.5 million backlog before that, if not more. You’re looking at a very expensive program; yet what have we seen or what have we heard that we should be convinced it’s going to be done?

I said there were three practical aspects, there are four actually; the other one I’ve touched upon but I want to put it to the minister again.

In the draft plan there are certain incentives to the companies to do the work required under the agreement with the ministry, certain incentives such as that the seedlings will be provided by the ministry, there will be money for forest roads, there will be all kinds of assistance, financial and otherwise.

There is also the incentive that if they improve the backlog, or the not satisfactorily regenerated lands, they will be entitled to a reduced stumpage charge on them. There is also the incentive that if they don’t do it on a sustained yield basis then their licence will be changed and they will lose part of their allowable cut because they haven’t provided sufficient regeneration. There, to me, is where the rub comes in. Simply put, in very practical terms, if a company does not do the regeneration it can still take the ministry to court, regardless of what it says in the draft agreement, and if the cost is too large it surely will.

Secondly, the other arrow in the minister’s quiver is that he can do something to the licence. He can either revoke it under the Crown Timber Act, under the present legislation, or he can cut down on their allowable cut.

Mr. Wildman: Did the ministry ever do that?

Mr. T. P. Reid: No, not that I know of.

I’ll give a very personal example. I have two mills in my riding. If the ministry came along in 10 years and said, “You haven’t been providing proper regeneration, we’re going to cut back your allowable cut,” this would mean two things.

Mr. Wildman: No jobs.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Obviously. Their production falls and people are laid off. There are people out of work. Does that make sense? Why should the workers suffer because the company hasn’t done the regeneration job that it should have done? I think it’s obvious that is never going to be used. It never has been in the past. The threat to cancel the licence totally, of course, is ridiculous, because you’re not going to put everybody out of work; you’re not going to cut down on their allowable cut because you’re going to put people out of work. I’d be the first one to say to the minister, “Look, you have put people out of a job and it’s not their fault, it’s the company’s fault.”

The point of all of this, in case anybody has missed it, is simply that there has to be more of a disincentive, to my mind, to ensure the proper amount of regeneration is done. I suggest to the minister -- and I won’t go over all the arguments we had last week about the liability and so on -- that he requires another arrow in that quiver of his, another method of disincentive so that if the regeneration is not done it will hit the companies where it will hurt the most, which is in their pocketbooks. On top of the liabilities that are covered -- and I must say as a lawyer I’m perhaps not as articulate about that as I should be -- again it was my understanding that clause in the agreement ensured that the ministry would have no trouble getting the money out of the company, because under the agreement the company would have to pay it automatically. Now I understand the company can take the matter to court if the cost is high enough to warrant it, so there aren’t any automatic provisions for the ministry to get its money.

While I can understand why the liquidated damages clause in section 20 of the agreement is there, as far as I can see it is not going to provide a sufficient disincentive to the company if it decides it’s not going to do it. I’ll recall to your mind that the Ministry of Natural Resources has to do the work before those liquidated liabilities are paid and the ministry, as I’ve already pointed out, may very well not have the funds available. It’s fine to say if we’re going to get it back automatically from the company we can borrow the money to do it, but the company may very well, as I understand it now, take you to court. Those things, as we know, can go on for some time. I suggest that the disincentive has to be sufficiently heavy so the work will be done.

[4:30]

I wonder if the minister could address himself to some of those very practical aspects flowing from section 5 of the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Let me deal first with the last point the member for Rainy River raised. That is, the provision that the ministry may do the work and would do the work if the company didn’t, but that we would have problems in collecting from the company if the sum were large.

The advice I have is that because of the two definitive documents, the management plan and the other manual -- in other words, the detailed requirements set out in the agreement, which is a legal document -- if these matters are not done then while it may require going to court to do so there would probably be an early hearing by the court of competent jurisdiction. Because the matter is spelled out clearly in manuals, which are part of the document, the company’s likelihood of not being found liable is very slim indeed.

That is the reason for the detailed descriptions which would affect the acreage which has to be regenerated by the company. In the event of delay by the company, the ministry will move right in.

Going back to the beginning and the motion of the member for Sudbury East, his motion says, “for every tree cut under the agreement and the regenerating of every acre harvested.” As I mentioned, in those areas of, in effect, first cut, there will be acres which will not be regenerated because they are required for permanent roads and so on, for the planting that will take place and for the future silvicultural treatment of the area, perhaps thinning of the new growth and for its sustained yield in cutting and planting in the future.

The second point is, and I am not a forester of course, there are areas which have been cut which we don’t consider have to be satisfactorily regenerated because they are not the kind of areas which can be economically harvested in perpetuity. I see the member for Rainy River is nodding and aware of that.

The question really is: what are the disincentives, how effective are they and how effective are the incentives? In my opinion the incentive of a 90 per cent cut in stumpage for additional yield per acre is a very strong incentive. But perhaps the strongest incentive is the five-year review. If the five-year review is not satisfactory, this means that the allowable annual cut is only going to last for, say, another 15 years.

The company has a very large investment in its own plant and operation. One of its concerns and one of the foundations of this type of an agreement, an evergreen agreement, is that a company or companies have to look down the road a long way in terms of their timber resources for the future -- certainly the investors do and I would say that the company must. If they are not doing an effective job and they find they only have a 15-year agreement, for instance, and then a 10-year agreement, in my opinion there would be an awful lot of activity with perhaps some change in the forestry staff to get back on track and to meet the requirements of the agreement, of the prescriptions which are in it, the detailed silvicultural treatment and so on that are involved.

It is really not a question, as the honourable member expressed his concern about, of suddenly saying, “Sorry, fellows, you are out of business tomorrow.” Because of their own records they have a year-to-year record of how they are going in terms of regeneration. They know the terms of the agreement, so when they start off they have 20 years and if they keep up to the standards and meet the targets they always have 20 years ahead of them. If they start falling behind, the years ahead drop back and they are going to have to try a lot harder or they know, and everybody will know, they are going to be in trouble down the road.

I might say I have been emphasizing to the companies -- and I think I have met representatives of all of them -- that the agreements at the moment are optional, but they will be mandatory as we are able to establish agreements with each company. Establishing agreements with each company is not just a matter of getting them in the office to sign. All the prescriptions, the work that has to be done, I suppose the studies and the inventories of their own woodlands, the areas which we license to them, have to be worked out. The prescriptions are not the same in every case, of course.

Again my own feeling, not as a forester but as somebody who has seen a lot of new schemes tried, is that we don’t want to have agreements with everybody. My guess is that we may find there are some things we should add or some things we should change in the form of agreement that is before the members today, perhaps in a year or two.

If that is the case the House of course will be aware of it. I suspect we will learn a little as we go along, but in a few years every company operating in this field in Ontario will be required to be under an agreement.

Just one technical matter: the honourable member was asking why section 25(4) in the present act was being rescinded from its present position and, in effect, being re-enacted under section 5. I am told that is legal housekeeping to make it very clear that the provision applies to the agreements that are complicated under --

Mr. T. P. Reid: They are complicated.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- they are contemplated; that was a Freudian slip -- contemplated under section 5(a) of the bill which is before us.

In terms of funds, the amounts that are presently approved by management board over the current year and the following four years, and these are in 1979 dollars for this year, as I mentioned, $4.3 million; for 1980-81, $14.3 million; for 1981-82, $17.3 million and the same amount for 1983-84. That’s a total of $70.5 million, which I think indicates a long-term commitment and, in fact, it was made clear and the government is quite aware that once we get into this program we are going to be in it, or something like it, for certainly the foreseeable future.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If I could just clarify one point and ask one further question if I may.

On the liquidated damages business; am I right in assuming that the ministry has to do the work before the liquidated damages can be claimed for? Would it not be a better arrangement, perhaps because of the practical limitations of manpower, both of ministry staff and people available to do the work, if the agreement said, “If you don’t do the work, you are going to have to pay X number of dollars under the guidelines or the actual cost, if we have to do it”; one or the other -- but put a sort of bottom-line figure there, as an incentive?

If for some reason -- the minister might recall this line -- there is a heavy fire season and there are no people to do the work, why not have as part of the agreement that X number of dollars will be paid for the regeneration, whether or not it is done? Take out that part which I understand is in there; the fact that if the ministry has to do it first before it can claim for the liquidated damages. Again, that may be some legal nicety that I don’t understand.

Hon. Mr. Auld: First of all, the purpose of the exercise is to get the regeneration done, not to sort of collect penalties. My understanding of liquidated damages is that the word “liquidated” means established. In any action for damages, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show within fairly close figures exactly what those damages are.

For instance, the damages might include, if there were a delay, some loss of merchantable timber somewhere down the road because it was a year or two late in maturing. That could be part of such damages but the main amount would be the cost of the equipment, the people and the material used to do the work that was left undone under the agreement by the defendant, the company.

I am informed by our expert that paragraph 20 of section 4 of the agreement is the part that spells it out as far as the two parties to the agreement are concerned. Subsection 4 of paragraph 20 of the agreement says, “Where the company fails to regenerate forests under subparagraph 3, the company agrees to then pay to the minister an amount of money equal to the costs of regenerating such area at the rates referred to in schedule D for the treatments that in the opinion of the minister, have to be applied to such areas.”

Translated, I think that means that one has to do the work so they have the bill to show what the costs are. Is that it? I am wrong. I was 180 degrees out. They have to pay the amount shown in the estimate, so they don’t have to do the work and that answers the honourable member’s question and I am a little clearer myself.

Mr. T. P. Reid: One further question if I may and then I will let my friends who are chomping at the bit have a chance.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’ve lost all hope of ever getting a QC.

[4:45]

Mr. T. P. Reid: Does the minister contemplate or can we have his assurance that after the program starts in the annual report of the Ministry of Natural Resources there will be a schedule, if you like, but certainly a survey of all the companies under these agreements and how well they are living up to their agreement?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am informed yes.

Mr. Wildman: I want to move back specifically to deal with the amendment introduced by my colleague from Sudbury East. Some might consider it a little frivolous for the member to have introduced this amendment to this bill at this time. I think some of the members of the House, including the minister, looked at it that way. If that is the case then what they are saying is that the statements by the Premier in the Brampton charter were in themselves frivolous.

The minister keeps referring to the motion by the member for Sudbury East as if it was something that had come out of the blue today. The member for Sudbury East simply learned from the Premier of this province that this was what we were supposed to be attempting; that this was the commitment to be made by the provincial government in terms of regeneration. Yes, he indeed believed the Premier that that was what the Premier was going to bring in.

In introducing this amendment, I think the member for Sudbury East quite rightly has focused the attention of this debate -- or should have focused the attention of this debate -- on the way this provincial government has for years treated resource development and management in this province.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I never did believe that this was a commitment by the Premier. I am not as trusting as my colleague from Sudbury East. I never really did believe he meant it. As a matter of fact, I thought it was just plain, crass, political manoeuvring by the Premier; just trying to get votes.

Maybe I was wrong. Today we will have the opportunity of finding out whether or not this government really believes in two for one. If they do, when this comes to a division they will vote for the amendment. If they don’t believe in it, then why don’t they say so before the division?

Why doesn’t the minister get up here and repudiate the statement of the Premier if indeed they don’t believe in it? If they do accept it, why doesn’t he get up and say, “Yes, fine, we accept it”? Now, I know the minister did get up and list the numbers of seeds planted per acre, and so on. He said that in many cases this amendment might produce more than two for one.

Well, if that’s the case, then this amendment is quite acceptable and the minister will accept it. If it isn’t, however; if it is impractical; if it is a statement made in complete ignorance of forest management procedures, then the minister should get up and say so. He should say that what is important is not any number like two for one, or one for one, or five for one, or whatever, but how many trees are growing in an area that has been cut over five years after it has been cut over and the regeneration practices have been put into effect if that is the position of the government now, rather than the position taken during the 1977 election.

Frankly, I hope it is the position of the government now. I hope they don’t simply stick with a certain number as being the way of talking about the forest management practices in this province.

We might be accused, I think, of playing games with this issue. But we are not. What we are attempting here is to get a clear statement from the minister as to what he believes about the statement made by his leader in the last election campaign. Was it a half truth, was it a statement made in error, or was it indeed the policy his ministry believes this government should be following? That’s what we want. In moving this amendment, we want a clear statement from the government as to whether or not they accept the Premier’s statement made in 1977.

The statement has been made that this is not a particularly practical amendment. If it is not a practical amendment, it wasn’t a practical statement in 1977 either, I suppose. That’s what we want. We want the government to come clean. We want the minister to tell us exactly what he intends in this bill. What does he intend by sustained yield? Does any number like two for one have any relevance to the term “sustained yield”? Does any number at all have relevance to sustained yield?

If the statement made by the Premier was indeed a statement made in ignorance of real practical forest management practices, let’s say so now.

I, for one, would not be prepared to force a vote on this amendment. If the minister were to get up and say, “Look, two for one was a mistake; we shouldn’t have said that. The Premier was wrong; he didn’t know what he was talking about,” okay, that’s fine. We would then withdraw this amendment because it would be ridiculous for us to force an amendment on a government following the Premier when the Premier didn’t know what he was talking about.

If, however, the minister wants to maintain his position that two for one is practical and that this amendment can be met by the bill, then fine, incorporate it in the bill. It is just expanding and interpreting what you mean by sustained yield.

From my point of view, with the small amount of knowledge I have about the forest industry, the whole statement of two for one made by the Premier appeared to be intellectually shallow at the time it was made. I don’t really know what two for one means. That is something I would like the minister to let us know, too. What does it mean? If he believes in it or if he accepts it, what does it mean?

I want to know specifically, in dealing with this amendment, whether or not it should be brought to a vote, what this ministry believes by the term “sustained yield” and how one achieves it. Involved with that is the most important question we have to answer today: what does the minister believe is going to be done with the tremendous backlog we have in terms of regeneration?

Over the last many years about a third of the cut-over area has been left barren. One third is supposed to regenerate itself; another third, approximately, has been regenerated. Those are the figures we have been given. What is going to be done about that one third where nothing is done?

I will accept the statement by the minister that in some of those areas it isn’t practical to do much because they aren’t really going to provide a long-term, ongoing, productive forest. But he can’t convince me that fully one third of the cut-over area is that kind of forest land.

I want to know what is going to happen with that backlog. When you say “sustained yield,” does it have any relevance to that backlog? If so, what, and who pays, and who does the work?

It may be too much to ask this minister to make a clear statement but I would like him to say whether or not he accepts two for one. Does it have any meaning at all? How does it relate to sustained yield? If it doesn’t, and he believes sustained yield means something else, what does it mean?

Does this amendment fill out the bill according to the policy enunciated by the Premier and accepted by the government, or has that policy somehow changed, or have the experts who know a little bit more about forestry reached the Premier and the minister and said, “Look, that two for one didn’t make any sense”?

Just make that statement. Let us know what he means. Let’s not have a situation where we play with the forest industry as an election tool to win seats in southern Ontario by making statements that have little or no relevance to real forest management. Let’s have a commitment that after five years, in the five-year review process, he’s going to have significant numbers of acres growing so they will be able to provide a yield again in the future, rather than being left barren. Let’s have a statement which tells us what he’s going to do about the backlog of acres where nothing has been done for years.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Minister, do you wish to reply?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I wonder if there’s any more comment along the same line.

Mr. Foulds: This is strictly on the amendment, Mr. Chairman. I have some other comments I want to make on the section and the minister knows of a further amendment I’ll be submitting on this section later in the debate.

When I first spoke on this amendment I indicated I was embarrassed for the Premier and this minister. Mr. Chairman, I’ll tell you another source of my embarrassment.

I must confess I am embarrassed I didn’t think of the idea my colleague, the member for Sudbury East, had earlier. I am embarrassed I did not think of focusing the debate in the way he did three or four weeks ago when we knew that this bill was coming up for debate in the House. In fact, we’ve known for several months this bill was coming up for debate in the House.

What I want to say is I don’t believe a politician in this province should make a commitment like the Premier made in 1977 unless it can be carried out in legislative terms. A commitment that has no legislative backing to it has no backing to it. It is like the old phrase, not worth the paper it isn’t written on.

That’s what I find distressing about this government in general terms, not merely when it comes to reforestation and regeneration, but when it comes to rights for special ed. They enunciate a policy but they don’t give it legislative backing. We’re still awaiting that bill to guarantee special education rights to young children in this province.

I sat here and leaned over and said to my colleague from Algoma, “I could get more and more exercised as we get into this debate.” We sit here and we’re all anxious to get the bill passed because it is a step in the right direction. But when I hear the minister make some of his roundabout -- if the minister will forgive me -- otiose statements, I get disturbed. I get disturbed when we’re told, “We’re planting so many seeds and if every one of them grow it will be more than two for one and it would be contrary to this if we put it in legislation.” I’m a relatively unsophisticated person.

[5:00]

When I look at the Ministry of Natural Resources annual report for this year and turn to page 10 of that report, there is a brief chart outlining the classification of cuts for forest land in this province and we look at the summary of silvicultural operations in 1978-79.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but as I read that report and take the accumulation of the totals of the clearcut, the selection cut, the partial cut, we have a total of 481,850 acres cut. Out of that we have this quaint category, “not available for regeneration treatment, 154,227 acres.” We have another category called, “natural regeneration without treatment, 141,013 acres.” Then we have what is called, “available for regeneration treatment, 186,610 acres.” As I said, I came up with a total of 481,850 acres that we have cut.

Then I look down the regeneration table. I look at the planting of nursery stock, planting of container stock, seeding, scarification, strip cutting, seed-tree cutting, shelter-wood cutting and clear cutting, and to give you the best possible figure I come up with a total of 193,154 acres. As I read that, the percentage regenerated is 40 per cent.

The ministry does something rather strange in this table. There is another half, at the bottom of the page, which is called “retreatment for regeneration.” Then there are headings like “pending,” “site preparation” and “marking.” For those, the ministry comes up with a figure of something like 592,390 acres that have been treated in one way or another. There is something funny, if you will pardon me, with those figures. The ministry is double counting; it is saying hand cleaning is regeneration; that herbicide spraying is regeneration --

Mr. Wildman: Herbicides?

Mr. Foulds: That’s right -- if the total area treated is counted.

What is misleading about that is the total area treated, the bottom line -- which magically exceeds the bottom line of how much has been cut -- looks as if we were regenerating or reforesting more than we cut. But it isn’t true. That is not what’s happening. The categories outlined there in the bottom half, after the 193,154 acres that actually had some kind of regeneration and reforestation, aren’t reforestation or regeneration techniques. In other words, the ministry is mixing apples, oranges, bananas and pineapples to make the figures look good.

Mr. Wildman: Typical. You’re cooking the figures.

Mr. Foulds: As one tries to sort the wheat from the chaff in the annual report, what one actually comes down to is a 40 per cent regeneration figure. At least, that’s what I come down to. I would certainly like some instruction if I’m wrong.

What I find even more distressing about that 40 per cent for this year, 1978-79, after the two-for-one promise, is that included in that category is “natural regeneration without treatment.” There is no estimate of the wood inventory we get from that regeneration, no estimate of the quality of the second forest and whether or not we have adequate black spruce, for example, the prime species along with pine, for pulp and paper, for which we primarily need this timber.

We have the category called “available for regeneration treatment.”

Mr. Wildman: A euphemism.

Mr. Foulds: We’re not given an indication. We find out when we get to the middle of the page that even though it was available, some of it wasn’t treated.

I think what we were told at the forestry seminar in Thunder Bay in the summer of 1976 is still true -- of what we cut, we replant one third; one third of the whole gets regenerated naturally, and we write off one third.

Mr. Wildman: And only 50 per cent of the part we treat actually is successful.

Mr. Foulds: Exactly. I hope the interjection of my colleague from Algoma gets into the record because it was exactly the next point I was going to make.

What was true then has not improved today. We are putting so much faith in this section and this amendment that I worry. I worry that this government is serious. When it comes to section 5(2), the definition of sustained yield is, “The growth of timber that a forest can produce and that can be cut to achieve a continuous approximate balance between growth of timber and timber cut.”

Mr. Wildman: How does that relate to two for one?

Mr. Foulds: I worry. I worry more than I can say about that word “approximate” because what approximate has meant historically in this province is about one third of what was cut.

I worry about that because I come from northern Ontario and my part of the province depends on the forest industry for its life. Every time I think about the fact that 75 per cent of the jobs in my part of the province are dependent on the forest industry, and every time I think about the fact that this government, with its base in southern Ontario, has mismanaged the forests as cavalierly as they have, I get angry. I get a deep and burning anger.

I was born and I was brought up in the north and like every snotty-nosed, smart-alec teenager, I wanted to get away. I got away for eight years and I went back to the north. I found I liked it there. That was my home. I have deep and abiding roots in that northern forest and it means a lot to me in hard, cold economic terms. If it’s not too romantic in the best sense of the word, it means a lot to me in emotional terms.

When I see the frivolity with which the Premier treats the problem of regeneration, I’m thankful I have a colleague like my friend from Sudbury East who can focus on an issue so well, the way he has done with his amendment. I worry we have in legislation the flummery we have when we have the definition for sustained yield we have in this bill.

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my concerns on this section because I very much fear it will not accomplish the fundamental principle of the bill, to bring about a better way of reforestation in Ontario. What I’m particularly concerned about is what will happen when a company enters into one of the agreements referred to in section 5 and that company does not proceed with its end of the bargain; that is to say, it does not replant or reforest, as it should.

At what stage does the ministry come in? Is it two years after they were to start reforestation? Is it one year? Is it three years? By the time the ministry realizes the company is not doing what it should be doing, is the cat out of the bag; is it too late at that stage for the ministry to go in and to start doing the work which should have been done by the company? What I’m really asking is what kind of a policing system will the ministry have to ensure that the companies are actively participating in this program of reforestation? As the minister knows, if reforestation is to be effective, it should be done as quickly as possible after the initial cut.

I’d like to refer you to some statistics which were set out by Mr. George Brown, a forester who spoke at the conference on forest regeneration. He had undertaken a survey of some 30,000 acres of cut-over land which was harvested in 1972-73. Of those acres, 10,000 were treated silviculturally by planting seedlings or scarifying for natural regeneration. His results showed that on treated acreage the forest maintained 74 per cent of the original amount of jackpine and 90 per cent of spruce. However, on the 20,000 non-treated acres, he discovered 22 per cent of the original level of jackpine and 60 per cent of the spruce regenerated. He also found there was a transition from spruce to balsam fir and from pine to poplar.

Mr. Wildman: That’s right.

Mr. Bolan: His tests revealed that it is absolutely necessary to treat areas as soon as possible once the area has been cut.

My concern is where the company does not do what it should be doing within a certain period of time, even with the provisions of the agreement calling for liquidated damages or some form of repayment by the company to the ministry, the horse will be out of the barn and there won’t be much that you can do about it. I would like you to assure us that something can be done about it and that some kind of teeth can be put into the legislation to ensure some form of policing by ministry officials so that the reforestation programs are carried out.

Dealing particularly with other parts of that section, it says that the minister may enter into an agreement. Why is it “may”? Is it at the option of the ministry or is it at the option of the company? Don’t you feel that if you are going to get into a program of reforestation it’s the ministry which should have the option as to whether or not it wants to enter into an agreement with the company? What if the company refuses to enter into an agreement? Does that mean it automatically does not get a licence to cut? I’d like to have some answers to that.

I’d like to have some assurance that the “may” refers to the ministry’s option and it is the ministry that decides which company it will enter into an agreement with on reforestation and that it is not left to the option of the company. Otherwise, it may not be beneficial to a company to enter into an agreement with the ministry with respect to a certain area which is being cut or with respect to the type of trees which are being cut in that particular part of the province or in that particular area. It may be better for the company not to get involved in any program of reforestation.

Again, I ask the question why should it be left up to the company to determine whether it should enter into an agreement or not. I feel it should be at the discretion of the ministry because the ministry can determine on how its long-range plans are going ahead and whether or not it is important for the reforestation of the forest of that particular area whether an agreement should be entered into.

[5:15]

Again my main concern is if the company does not cut, but if the company does not do anything about it, at what stage do you come in? At what stage do you enter and say, “Okay, fine. We realize that company A is not doing what it should be doing, or that it is not doing it properly. Therefore we are now going to come in, or bring in a contractor, or whatever has to be done to see to it reforestation takes place”? I would like to have some answers to that.

The other question is the construction, reconstruction and maintenance of any roads necessary for such management and operation. Has the province entered into an agreement with the federal government with respect to the funding for companies to build roads for purposes of reforestation?

I believe there was some discussion about that some six or seven months ago, perhaps longer. I understand the federal government was prepared to make some funds available precisely for this purpose of joint funding for purposes of building roads and getting into areas for reforestation. I wonder if you could clarify that point for me.

The other comment I have to make is on the amendment. I can live with that amendment because, after all, I want to see the Legislature of Ontario have full opportunity to implement one of the resounding doctrines of the Premier of Ontario. I think it is only fair we should all rise when the time comes and support the amendment, so we can unanimously support the Premier of Ontario in his endeavours for reforestation.

Mr. Ruston: A minority government works that way.

Mr. Bolan: Absolutely, because the opposition parties are always criticized for being nothing more than stumbling blocks. With this surge of legislation we have seen over the past two years, here is an opportunity to show the people of Ontario that by no means are we stumbling blocks. In fact, we are even going to go back and give full support to one of the Premier’s election promises. I really think we would be remiss in our duty as legislators and as conscientious citizens of Ontario if full support were not given to this doctrine of his.

Now it has been mentioned by previous speakers that maybe the Premier was wrong. We realize, of course, that he is bereft of human failings and weaknesses. If that is not the case, then all he need do is rise or have somebody run down here for him and say, “Well, I am sorry. I made a mistake. I was not right on the two for one. Perhaps it should be something on a sustained yield.”

Mr. Ruston: Like his kissing cousin in Ottawa.

Mr. Bolan: Absolutely. And then of course we will get into the convoluted definition of a sustained yield, which really amounts to whatever interpretation the ministry wants to give at whatever time is convenient for them.

So as I say, we can live with the amendment and I am really pleased to see the member for Sudbury East has the foresight to give the people of Ontario full opportunity to compliment the Premier on his statements of 1977.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further comments on the amendment? If not I will put the question.

Mr. Minister, any further comment?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, prior to putting the question, there are a couple of things I would like to say.

First of all I think it is fair to say the statement referred to as the Brampton charter was really a symbolic statement indicating that a major effort was to be made in regenerating the crown forest of this province. The figures I indicated today, in terms of provincial expenditures over the current and the following four years, make that pretty clear.

I think there are some real problems in the way the amendment has been put. As I pointed out, technically I suppose we are well ahead of that two for one planting. But I must say that there is one part of the amendment --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Auld: With good forest practice, with the things I mentioned earlier today about what happens when you cut an area for the first time and what you have to use for roads and landings and that sort of thing, it will not be possible to regenerate every acre harvested. That in itself is just not good forest practice and would not happen.

As the member for Rainy River said, there are areas which have been forested which are not economically viable for reforestation. There are other areas which can be improved and from which the yield can be greatly enhanced. I think there are sound reasons for not accepting this amendment as presented by the member for Sudbury East.

There are two or three other matters I would like to comment on in dealing with section 5. The commitment in 1977 was really that there was going to be a major increase in reforestation. I think most foresters would agree what we are talking about is not trees but cunits -- the amount of fibre produced. A spindly tree two inches in circumference is a tree, but it is not much in the way of wood and it is not useful. What we want to do is improve the yield from those forest lands which are good forest lands and from which the yield can be substantially increased.

Mr. Wildman: What about the backlog?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I touched on the not satisfactorily regenerated land in my remarks previously when I indicated there is a provision in the agreement -- section 24 I think it is -- which says five per cent of those lands which are satisfactory for regeneration but have not been satisfactorily regenerated will be treated by the licensee each year for a period of 20 years so that we will catch up. That is one of the ways we expect to increase the yield, and increase it very substantially.

The member for Port Arthur touched on a number of things which other members have touched on, but he did ask what the ministry is doing regarding the quality of black spruce regeneration. I am happy to tell him I am informed the ministry this year began large-scale production of genetically-improved white spruce and black spruce. Initially we demonstrated that more than 500,000 such trees can be produced within a 12-month period and this is the largest program of its type.

The member for Nipissing spoke about the one third, one third, one third. I think it is fair to say the natural forest has been exploited since the early settlement in this province and now we are attempting to enter into an area of intensive management. This is because the convenient forest and the good forest has retreated further and further away from the points of usage. It is becoming apparent to everyone that we did not have a resource which would regenerate itself naturally in the quantities which are now being consumed and will be consumed in the future, provided we have them. Our method of doing this is through the forest management agreement.

I hope one day shortly to table the growing stock figures as soon as the current inventory is complete. It is the plan then to table them every five years thereafter.

The honourable member also asked about roads. There is an agreement signed by Ontario and the government of Canada just about a year ago now, under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for I think $70.1 million. Some $59 million or $60 million of this was for roads and bridges, primarily to overmature timber which is a little too far away at the moment to reach conveniently. The remainder is for silviculture and a variety of other things having to do with reforestation.

The member was concerned about the immediate control each year as to whether the company was carrying out its part of the agreement. As I mentioned earlier, there is a very easy way of keeping track of that because since they would be billing us for the work they do, if we don’t get a bill we know they haven’t done any work, quite aside from the general supervision that ministry staff will be applying to the companies with which we deal.

In reply to the question, are companies going to come in and what would we do if they don’t, I think I indicated earlier I have been in touch with all the companies and have indicated we will require them to enter into an agreement, though not all at once because of the problems of serving that large a program overnight.

The member asked what the ministry would do if a company declined. My information to date is that will not happen. On the other hand, there are a number of things we could do. The two obvious ones would be to indicate that their licence would be reduced or terminated, which the minister has authority to do. I suppose the other would be to go in and do it ourselves, as we have been doing in a modest way in the last few years but which we think is inefficient for the reasons that have been set out before. So there are choices.

Finally, I would suggest the intent of the member for Sudbury East’s motion that regeneration increase and increase dramatically is one with which I cannot quarrel and I don’t think any member of the House can; certainly none has so far in this discussion. But I think the wording of it is such that it is not possible to carry out in terms of good forest practice. I think the indication by the government of the two-for-one planting is a symbolic way of indicating the kind of program that we are now asking for approval in principle from this House to get ahead with.

Mr. Foulds: If I could just comment very briefly, several years ago a former Queen’s Park columnist for the Globe and Mail referred to this same minister in a different portfolio as the Doug Harvey of the Legislature in terms of defence of --

Hon. Mr. Auld: Pardon? I am going to have to get this thing fixed.

Mr. Foulds: A former columnist for the Toronto Globe and Mail referred to this minister as the Doug Harvey of Premier Davis’ cabinet; that is, a smooth defenceman who didn’t look as if he was working hard, but certainly was, and had very few hard shots put by him.

An hon. member: The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) is getting the shots.

Mr. Foulds: I think the defence the minister has managed to generate this afternoon has been one where he has not lived up to that reputation. The use of the word “symbolic” is indeed interesting because the words of my colleague from Sudbury East and the words of the Premier are identical. The words were quite clear to a commitment to replacing, the Premier said, at least two trees for every one harvested -- not planted, not regenerated. He used the word “replaced.”

[5:30]

Mr. Wildman: You would have to plant 10 for one then.

Mr. Foulds: I was curious enough to send to the legislative library for a dictionary. The page was kind enough to bring back from the legislative library the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which is a fairly reputable publication, probably the most reputable dictionary published. The definition for “replace” is quite clear; verb transitive, put back in place, take place of, to succeed, be substituted for. In other words, a commitment to substitute at least two trees for every one harvested -- not two seeds, not two seedlings, but two trees.

The minister also indicated that it was impractical to regenerate every acre harvested and the minister is probably right. We agree with him. We agree with him and we disagreed with the Premier in 1977. And we said so publicly.

If you will forgive me, we took some beating on the hustings because of that, because the Premier’s simplistic promise, which was not symbolic at the time, carried some weight with the public of Ontario. It got your party some votes and it lost us some votes, but that commitment was quite clear. It was to regenerate every acre harvested. If this minister wants to say the Premier’s statement was symbolic, then I want to say to him through you, Mr. Chairman, the vote on this amendment is going to be symbolic too.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further questions or comments on the amendment?

If the committee is ready for the question, I will read the amendment, as the legislative counsel changed a few words to make it grammatically correct.

Mr. Martel’s amendment now reads that subsection 1 of section 5a of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by inserting after “agreement” in the sixth line: “shall provide for the yield to be sustained on the basis that at least two trees are planted for every tree cut under the agreement and that every acre harvested is regenerated.”

All those in favour of Mr. Martel’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Amendment stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on section 5?

Mr. Foulds: My colleague has some questions that may more properly apply to section 6 than section 5. I would like to submit my amendment formally at this time although I would be glad to defer discussion on it because it comes as a last subclause in this section. It’s on section 5. It’s the one I have already submitted to the minister but have not yet formerly submitted it to the table.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Foulds moves that section 5a of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following subsection: “(4) The minister shall, within five days after he enters into an agreement under subsection 1, lay a copy of the agreement before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at commencement of the next ensuing session.”

Mr. Foulds: That amendment is being distributed to other members of the assembly, Mr. Chairman. As I say, I would like your guidance. I am willing to defer debate on that if there are other people who have questions on subsections 1, 2 or 3 of section 5.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions or comments on any other subsection prior to the new section? The member for Algoma has something prior? All right. I will just hold this then and place it when the discussion is completed.

The member for Algoma, on what clause?

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I really need some direction here if you could give me some direction. I have some questions to ask with regard to how the agreements set forth under section 5 would affect communities that are on crown land. I am not certain, frankly, whether this should be dealt with under section 5 of the act or section 6. To elaborate, I could give you some idea of the problem I have.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think I can answer that question. I believe I mentioned previously that because of the use of crown management units and the fact a number of different operators may be operating on the same acreage, there is no intention of applying this kind of forest management agreement to them. We intend to reforest those ourselves, or under contract directly with the crown, or there may be in the future some different method.

There is no intention of using this kind of a forest management agreement to deal with crown management units. We will continue to deal with them in the foreseeable future as we presently are.

Mr. Wildman: The minister didn’t quite understand what I was referring to when I said “communities.” If I could elaborate, perhaps he could give us some indication of where it would be best for this to be debated, if that is in order.

The communities I am talking about are native communities located on crown land for which they have at this time no clear title. I want to know under which section of the bill I should be raising the questions which I intend to raise; that is, how any agreement that might be made in line with the provisions set out in the act might affect the land on which these communities are situate.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think the best way to answer that at the moment is there are a number of areas within the province where there is presently a caution, Temagami and so on, and there are no new licences being issued.

In other areas where there is a claim by the native people, but the title presently is in the crown, depending on the discussions which took place that area might well be licensed now. If in negotiations or legal proceedings at some time in the future that ownership reverted from the crown to a band, then obviously some settlement would have to be made for whatever resources had been removed from it.

I would say as a matter of practice the ministry has not issued licences for areas where it was likely there might be a claim from the native people. On the other hand, some of the areas have been discussed as being possibly now in the crown, but argued by the native people that they shouldn’t be; I think we would have to deal with these as we go along because we can only deal with what exists in law. If something now is in the crown and somebody else has a claim towards it, in my view unless there were compelling indications that it might not remain in the crown as we have to deal with it as crown land under the Public Lands Act.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, it might be helpful if I were to list the specific communities to which I am referring. I still haven’t received a statement as to whether or not it is in order for us to be debating this under section 5 or under section 6. I’m still not aware.

An hon. member: It’s not even under the act.

Hon. Mr. Auld: If it’s to be debated, it should be under section 6. I am informed by our counsel that unauthorized occupation is not affected by this legislation. Any change from a licence to a forest management agreement does not change the status of the land.

Mr. Chairman: That makes it very clear.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, that gives me the problem I started out with. There are a number of communities in the northwest for which title is very unclear. The province considers the land to be crown land but the native people are in the process of requesting -- and have presented a brief to the two senior levels of government -- that these particular communities be given reserve status.

To say this bill does not affect it is very legalistic and correct -- it doesn’t affect the status of the land -- but my question is: Are we going to allow agreements to be made covering land which is now in question and upon which people have lived from time immemorial without consulting them? I can’t accept that if that’s the case.

I’d like to have a commitment from the minister now that whatever agreements he makes will not affect the land which is now occupied on Poplar Hill, North Spirit Lake, Deer Lake, McDowell Lake, Slate Falls, Aroland, Webequie, Lansdowne House, Summer Beaver, Hawley Lake, Long Dog Lake, and Fort Albany. If the minister can make that kind of commitment, it will assure us that the natives living in those communities are not going to face a situation where someone comes in and is given control over the land on which they live. Frankly, it would be much better if the government would make a commitment to make an agreement with these communities similar to the one it made a few years ago at Big Trout Lake.

Hon. Mr. Auld: With the greatest respect to the honourable member, I really don’t see there is anything in this bill that relates to the status of the lands which the honourable member has mentioned. I do know this: There are areas in the province -- there is one presently under negotiation which a group from a band wants to acquire and move to and be given reserve status. They’re negotiating with the government of Canada which in turn will purchase that land from the province, as they have over the years in other areas I’m told, to create in effect new reserves or new landholdings for status native people. For me to indicate at this point any blanket agreement as to changing the status of the land which the honourable member mentioned is impossible, of course, and I really don’t see how it relates to the principle or details of this bill.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, the thing that must be clarified for the purpose of this bill and this debate is simply that we must have very clearly from the minister statements that the ministry is not engaged in coming to an agreement and will not engage in coming to an agreement under this act giving cutting rights, either through the agreement process or through the licensing process, to a pulp and paper company for lands on which there are communities that have been established by the native population at the places mentioned by my colleague; and we must have a clear commitment that there will be no cutting rights for the lands on which those people have set up communities until the questions have been satisfactorily resolved.

[5:45]

What the resolution is is a matter for debate, discussion and negotiation between the government and the peoples involved. I don’t think we could in conscience agree to the legislation at this point unless we have a clear undertaking there would be no pre-emptive strike -- if I can put it that way -- through this bill at those communities my colleague from Algoma mentioned.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I just have one question of section 5a(3) where it says that the various subsections “do not apply in respect of an agreement entered into under subsection 1.”

Having gone through those sections and subsections of the bill and looked at the draft agreement, I have to keep in mind it is only a draft agreement and what is in the draft agreement isn’t necessarily completely what we are going to wind up with. Presumably there may be changes, I hope not substantive ones, other than what we have seen.

My question is both philosophical and legal: Is the minister convinced that he is protected and the people of Ontario are protected with the same kind of legal protection under section 5 of this bill and under the other sections of the amendment to the Crown Timber Act? In other words, we are not unduly giving anything up by not allowing these sections that do impose penalties or requirements and rights, in the minister’s case, to operate on the minister.

I take it we are convinced we are not losing anything by this and the minister still has the necessary arsenal of tools to operate under the draft agreement as he would have under the act, were these sections to apply.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took her seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Mrs. McGibbon: Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour’s assent.

Clerk Assistant: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour’s assent is prayed:

Bill 86, An Act to amend the Pesticides Act, 1973;

Bill 144, An Act to amend the Corporations Act;

Bill 152, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities;

Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the County of Northumberland;

Bill Pr10, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton;

Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton;

Bill Pr17, An Act to revive the Dinorwic Metis Corporation;

Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the City of Cornwall;

Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the County of Simcoe;

Bill Pr23, An Act to revive Honing Corporation Limited;

Bill Pr24, An Act respecting Co-operators Life Insurance Association;

Bill Pr26, An Act to revive Smith Brothers Jewellers, Limited;

Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the Assumption Church Cemetery.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty’s name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

CROWN TIMBER AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order before we adjourn, just so we can be clear. The committee rose and reported a few minutes ago. An amendment had been placed and stacked by agreement until 10:15, as I understood it.

What I want to get from the minister is whenever that amendment is put, does that carry the section under discussion -- because we haven’t completed the discussion on the section -- or does it simply dispose of the amendment? I think we should be clear on that before we leave at six o’clock so we know whether or not there will be a vote this evening.

Mr. Speaker: It’s my understanding that order of business will not be continued this evening. The same minister has estimates in committee. That matter will be resolved when members next resolve themselves into committee for dealing with that bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would assume you’re saying, Mr. Speaker, that order can’t be called this evening because our rules provide that we cannot debate Natural Resources matters when the resources development committee is hearing estimates. Since this is the case we therefore will not be voting on that this evening. Is it agreed that it’s stacked until that matter again comes up?

Agreed.

The House recessed at 5:56 p.m.