Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Motion for adoption of parts 1 and 2 of the final report of the standing resources development committee on acidic precipitation, abatement of emissions from the International Nickel Company operations at Sudbury, pollution control in the pulp and paper industry and pollution abatement at the Reed paper mill in Dryden.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, before we begin, I believe the three parties have agreed that the time will be divided equally and we will have a vote at 10:15.

Mr. Martel: If necessary.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: If necessary; right.

Mr. Speaker: Is that understood?

Mr. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this report of the standing resources development committee on acid precipitation.

As a member of the committee, I would like to say I learned a lot about this subject during the hearings that were held. As a member of the committee, I appreciate the seriousness of this problem. It concerns all of us. I have some reservations about a few of the items in the report. I would like to outline a couple of things in general and then some of those reservations.

I think the report lacks some of the simplistic explanations of just what acid rain or acidity is doing to some of the lakes in our province. First of all, the best way I find to explain this and what it is doing to fish is to talk to people in terms of the acidity of the water, much the same as we could talk about hot water and cold water, because a lot of people understand that. In other words, there are species of fish which are cold-water fish; if they are put in a warm-water pond, through time they will not propagate themselves. The opposite is also true. The water, whether hot or cold, is still quite fit to drink and not a health hazard in that nature.

The pH we are talking about with the acidity of some of the lakes really falls into the same kind of category; it is the quality of the water. Certain species of fish can stand a certain pH, some higher than others, some lower than others, but it still does not represent a health hazard.

Any people with swimming pools will know of acid treatments. I expect our Minister of the Environment has done a lot of thinking recently about acid rain and where the chlorine is coming down. I don’t know if he is going to refer to that or not. That could be another subject.

This report doesn’t mention the problems that will be created in areas other than on the shield. There is always a danger. When we compare it to acid rain in the Great Lakes or in areas where there is a limestone base, when the acid rain falls, it is overwhelmingly neutralized by the limestone or alkaline properties of the soil.

I would like to make that point very clear, because that is very important to farming areas in southwestern Ontario. We are not lowering the pH. We can’t stop adding lime to soils to lower the pH, because in a lot of areas we do need lime. The addition of acid rain isn’t going to help that liming situation very much. It is just in areas where there is no limestone base or anything of that neutralizing nature.

There are a couple of things in the dissenting opinions. In the transfer, I expect, from the interim report released in June on page 33 to the final report on page 33, in one of the dissenting opinions of the Conservative members, the asterisk got lost. It is fairly insignificant, but I do want to draw attention to it because one of the statements that the recommendation is based on is that the committee was told the problem was 100 times more serious than the eutrophication of the Great Lakes.

Our particular committee members objected to that statement, because it has really no background. It tends to be inflammatory.

Mr. Martel: Tell them to look at the Sudbury basin.

Mr. Watson: If it is 100 times on the basis of phosphorus, we are wrong. Is it 100, or is it 1,000? What is the basis for calling it 100 times worse than the eutrophication of the Great Lakes? That background for that particular statement has no subject. If it’s going to be in the pH of it, are we going on the pH scale, which is a logarithmic scale? That particular statement really has no meaning in that particular recommendation.

The other ones with which we wish to take exception are in the recommendations regarding the Inco control order in 2.6.4. This refers to the new technology; it says we should get the new technology if it’s available, and we should have it down to 750 tons per day. We tend to disagree with the figure being in the recommendation because, if new technology comes along, I am sure the Conservative members would like it down to zero, or 75 tons per day. If the technology is available to take it out, let’s take it all out. Let’s not leave 750 tons a day in it.

The recommendation is a bit redundant because, if new technology comes along, one can be assured we are going to have that down as far as it will go.

The other thing is that the 1,500-ton target should be maintained or should be reinstated. Again, it’s an instant solution to a problem that really should be solved at some time. I am not underscoring the seriousness of the problem; we do need to reduce the sulphur dioxide emissions.

In regard to the overall report, it is a report on a serious matter. The writing of it, in my opinion, does lack a little bit of objectivity. It has a little bit of bias in it; in fact, quite a little bit. When there are statements in the report such as that the problem is 100 times greater than the eutrophication of the Great Lakes, and the preamble fails to mention that if we want to get it down to a 750-ton target, we are going to have a reduction of 6,500 jobs, it seems to me it is weighted just a little bit on that side. Essentially, we agree it is a very serious problem.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do want to make a few comments with respect to this report. I, like the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson), served on the committee. I believe we started the hearings in January or February of this year. They were certainly very interesting and worth while. We had a lot of experts who came before the committee and gave us their views with respect to acid rain.

Up until that time at least, I was familiar with the problem only in a very elementary way. As the hearings went on and as we found out more information, which was then reported in the press, there seemed to develop a momentum of genuine concern on the part of the public, which felt we had been coping with most of our environmental problems in a very adequate way but all of a sudden, we have this huge environmental problem -- which, incidentally, in my view, has continued to build.

Together with the acid rain conference just a week or two ago, and the reports in the press which flowed from the tabling of the Canada-US study, all of this has served in a very useful way to bring this very serious problem to the attention of the public.

It is a serious problem, in my view. We know that at least 100 Ontario lakes and surrounding prime cottage country are dead; they are written off permanently. Another 48,000 are threatened within the next decade. Our vegetation is threatened. It even has human implications, particularly when one considers the possibilities of polluted drinking water and the release of heavy metals into that drinking water. If this continues over the next 50 years or beyond, who knows what sort of environmental damage will be done? It certainly appears now that damage, if it continues at the same level or relatively unabated, will be immense.

I want to deal for a few moments with the matter of the ministry program in so far as research is concerned. This is undoubtedly an ongoing thing, but I want to mention the matter of the 80-20 which we refer to and which originally came out of the hearings we had in February. The 80-20 came out of research done by the ministry, well-meaning research. I think it’s fair to say we found out, after the Canada-US report came out, the research certainly was inadequate and, in some respects, fundamentally flawed. It was fundamentally flawed, as I indicated in committee, on three basic but very important points. It was flawed, first of all, on the basis it didn’t measure air concentrations. Second, it didn’t measure atmospheric flux. Third, it never measured the dry deposition.

We had some discussion in committee about this. Basically, while the ministry officials said their research didn’t measure the things I have just mentioned, they felt their research did give them some kind of handle on the problem. That was the perception I got. There were many things the Canada-US report didn’t say. I am the first one to agree the research is preliminary, no matter whether it’s the research of the ministry, the research of the Canada-US team or the research in the States. I think this is a continual research problem. As we go along, we are going to find more and more answers and more and more key factors in the equation which we will find useful.

Given that fact, I still say the ministry research was rather wanting in many respects and for that reason, I think the Canada-US report pointed out, and properly so, that they weren’t sure whether it was 60-40 or 50-50 but it certainly wasn’t 80-20. I think more or less we quietly agree on that point because of research that has come out as a result of the Canada-US study.

Undoubtedly, because of the facts that did come out in the report of the joint team of scientists studying the pollution levels, we found that an average of 105,000 tons a month of acid rain pollution, produced by industry in Ontario and Quebec, fell on Ontario land. By comparison, only 59,000 tons of US pollution drifted north to Canada in an average month. About 29,000 tons blew south to the United States from Canadian sources. Actually what the report is saying is we are fouling our own nest. We are causing a lot of our own problems. Whether it’s the 50-50 or 60-40 or whatever, we are still fouling our own nest. We have got to clean it up.

[8:15]

In that respect, we can make some moves here. It’s to be hoped the moves will also be made in concert with Ottawa and the United States. But there should be no time lag as far as the action of this province is concerned. Enough is known about the problem, enough is defined, that we can do something about it. We don’t have to have all the t’s crossed and all the i’s dotted before we do anything.

In that respect, as I said in committee, the minister in tackling this problem is not going to be able to do anything unless he comes to grips with the problem of Inco and its emissions. That is the biggy; that is the one we are going to have to come to grips with first. Otherwise, the minister is not going to have any credibility with the rest.

To that respect, the minister was understood to have said in committee that there will be meetings going on. Maybe in the intervening period those meetings with Inco have already taken place. But I suggest to him that if we don’t clean up that 3,600 tons per day emission of SO₂ then we are in for a lot of trouble, and his ability to deal with the rest of them is almost totally wiped out. With the Inco problem, which has been a continuing problem over the years, we have the largest point source emitter of SO₂ on the continent. We can’t deal with the rest of the SO₂ emitters in Ontario unless we deal with Inco. We can’t get any kind of meaningful Canada-US agreement unless we deal with Inco. I suggest that is the pivotal action the minister has to take, and immediately.

Nanticoke is the next largest emitter of SO₂. It emits 405 million pounds per year. It is an Ontario Hydro plant. Lambton at Sarnia -- another Ontario Hydro generating station -- is next at 288 million pounds per year; Falconbridge at Sudbury follows with 235 million pounds per year; then comes Lakeview generating station at Toronto with 196 million pounds per year; and Algoma Steel at Wawa emits 183 million pounds per year.

Those are the big emitters in Ontario. Aside from Inco, Falconbridge and Algoma Steel, they are all emitting on behalf of Ontario Hydro. They all belong to Ontario Hydro: Nanticoke, Lambton and Lakeview.

In my view, the minister should, without delay, approach Ontario Hydro. As I said, the first priority is Inco; but, after that, the minister has to go to Ontario Hydro and say: “Look, you have to clean up your act. We can’t have this going on any longer.” If Ontario Hydro’s response is, “It is going to cost us $1 billion over the next five years,” then I would say in response, “That’s too bad, but we will have to pay the cost.” And the cost is obviously going to be borne by the power users in Ontario.

What I am saying essentially is that, no matter what the cost in this instance, we can’t afford to neglect it or not pay it. I think it is a question of cost-benefit. In my view, the situation has to be cleaned up if we’re going to preserve any semblance of environmental integrity.

When Ontario Hydro starts talking about Nanticoke, I would suggest the Ministry of the Environment take unto itself a little muscle, a little backbone, a little cement and say, “Look, you’re not going to build that coal-fired plant unless you put in the best available technology to remove the SO₂ emissions.” It is available, it may be costly, but we have to be prepared to bear those costs in order to clean up this situation.

I know the minister is going to argue, as he is prone to, that while we can put forward a best effort here, we’re still not going to solve the problem completely. Obviously that’s true, because of the long-range transport problem we have in terms of air pollution. Nonetheless, the best move the province of Ontario could make in terms of showing good faith to our neighbours to the south is to take action to show we’re really serious about this problem and we’re going to do something about it.

In his parting shot in committee the minister said Ontario was prepared to act alone. I hope he is prepared to carry out that course of action if need be, at the same time working towards other avenues of action such as an Ontario-Canada, Canada-US agreement with respect to this very serious problem of control of SO₂, emissions in both countries.

The problem with Inco, in my view, comes down to renegotiating a new control order. It has to be done. I would also suggest to the House through you, Mr. Speaker, that we consider the recommendation having to do with the assessment of the total cost of the pollution in the Sudbury area -- the assessment of the health cost, the property damage, the injury to vegetation, and so on -- as well as a complete economic analysis of the province from the environmental standpoint and from the standpoint of how much it’s going to cost Inco to clean it up and what they can do with the by-products of that cleanup.

What I’m really suggesting is an economic study similar to the one done by Jack Donnan of the ministry in regard to the pulp and paper industry. That was a very good study. It was well done. Mind you, the ministry hasn’t paid a lot of attention to it but I think it was well documented. It was well done. A lot of work went into that study.

I’m suggesting that the ministry undertake that kind of survey. Whether it’s done by Jack Donnan -- and his experience would lend itself to do this sort of thing -- or someone else is a judgement call on the part of the ministry. All I’m suggesting is that it be done. It could be done within a period of three months if Mr. Donnan and one or two other people were assigned to do it.

Up until now, the ministry has been accepting Inco’s position holus-bolus. If Inco says it’s too costly, the ministry’s attitude is that it’s too costly. I would like the ministry to be in a position to say, “No, it’s not too costly if you do it in this way and by this means.”

The ministry, in my view, has always been in a subordinate position. It has always been in a position where it may not actually accept all that Inco says but it isn’t in a position to disprove it. That’s where the problem arises, and the problem has been exacerbated over the last few years.

If this kind of study were done, it would give a little muscle and strength to the ministry in dealing with Inco. The ministry is going to strive to be tough, and it can’t be tough unless it has all the facts. For that reason, the minister simply has to come in with his own study and his own facts and figures -- independent figures arrived at separately and apart from anything Inco has done.

I have taken a few minutes to express our concern and to urge the minister into action. I draw his attention to the recommendations on page 53 of the report. As a party to the committee report, I support them and I refer them to his attention particularly, because there are some things there that perhaps would alleviate the pressing problem we are faced with at the moment and perhaps would resolve some other problems at the same time in so far as Inco is concerned.

There is scrubber technology available in the world today that can deal with smelter operations. Inco has argued it really doesn’t have the technology, that there is no technology that can do the job. I simply do not agree with that. The question Inco undoubtedly has in mind is the cost, but the technology is there. As I indicated previously, obviously there is going to be a high cost, but we have to pay it; we don’t have any choice.

For this reason, I am pleased to stand here tonight and say I am rather proud, as a party to the report, to have worked on this problem, in a sense to have identified it in terms of public perception and, I hope, to have helped make some small contribution in defining what recommendations we should advance as a partial solution at least to this very serious problem.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the minister’s statements of the last couple of weeks have provoked me to rise tonight. He continues to be an apologist, as his predecessors have been, for Inco.

I want to deal exclusively with time control order, and I want to put it in the perspective that this ministry, for as many years as I have been here, has been bamboozled by Inco. I am going to cite some examples where Inco has been able to manipulate that ministry like you wouldn’t believe and this has continued even to recent statements by the minister that he is going to deal with the problem when the rest of the world is prepared to deal with it.

Even to this day, that ministry has yet to admit that Inco and Falconbridge destroyed the ecology of the Sudbury basin. If one goes back over the years, time after time I tried to get their scientists to admit that Inco created the devastation in the Sudbury area, and to my knowledge they have yet to concede that has occurred.

[8:30]

Interesting, too, is the type of coverup that’s gone on over the years. I well recall in 1969, when we first learned a couple of people were working for the ministry -- they were then in another ministry -- by the name of Dreisinger and McGovern. My friend the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) indicates they need the background paper.

For 15 years, Dreisinger and McGovern were preparing the documentation which demonstrated the destruction in the Sudbury basin. No one knew. It was never made public until my friend from the United Steelworkers, Paul Falkowski, inadvertently found out Dreisinger and McGovern were following it right down the line.

We ultimately got those reports. They were sent down by bus by the former minister. He had them sent down because we really found out about them. But for at least 15 years they covered up that Dreisinger and McGovern were doing the work.

Let me give a couple of other examples of the coverup by the ministry in collusion with Inco. We used to have a fog condition -- some members will recall I first started to raise the matter in 1968 and 1969 -- where, in a period of some seven years, there were 168 accidents and 11 fatalities on Highway 17 west. We tried to prove that it was Inco’s responsibility, that they were creating the atmospheric fog conditions which led to those accidents.

For a number of years the ministry put out a couple of reports which said it was the atmospheric conditions. The fact that Inco was dumping hot water at 212 degrees into Copper Cliff Creek, with all the chemicals that were in it that prevented it from freezing, was immaterial. Again, the ministry was an apologist. They argued it was atmospheric conditions. If you had the proper wind inversions, and it all came down at the appropriate place, you would have fog.

My friend Paul Falkowski and I -- we were no scientists -- went out and took the temperatures. We found out the water was coming out at 212 degrees. Inco refused to give us the data. They said it was confidential information. The ministry accepted it at face value until they could no longer dispute it. When we brought in a number of affidavits by men who had skated from Copper Cliff, down the creek, to Kelly Lake, that proved something was now causing the creek not to freeze over.

That ministry, for years, denied it was Inco. We suggested the creek had to be culverted in. Inco said it was too costly. The ministry said you couldn’t do it. What did they do a couple of years ago? They finally culverted the creek in. Do you know how much fog has been there since, Mr. Speaker? None.

I suspect the ministry didn’t want to have poor old Inco sued for all those fatalities. I suppose the time for taking legal action has gone by, and dear old Inco has been saved. The minister sat there and denied it.

Let me give another example: I’ll quote from Hansard for this one, Mr. Speaker, because you will enjoy it so much. For two and a half years, Paul Falkowski and I complained to the Ontario Water Resources Commission, and then to the ministry itself, with respect to the drinking water at Inco. We said people were getting sick, and it was terrible. The Ministry of the Environment denied it categorically, starting when it used to be involved with the Ministry of Mines. Everyone over there denied it.

In 1971, I got a file. In that file, it said the following -- and you have to remember that for two and a half years, subsequent ministers, including Jack Simonett, Allan Lawrence and Bert Lawrence, all denied it.

I got a letter, supposedly, and attached to the letter was a whole file. It was written to the Minister of Health by the Honourable George Kerr. It said: “During my estimates, Elie Martel questioned me regarding the quality of drinking water at Copper Cliff smelter at Inco. It would appear that there have been complaints regarding the quality of water available at various fountains within the plant, and Mr. Martel indicated the colour of the water was most repulsive. There had been numerous incidents of gastrointestinal disorders in Lively, Ontario, because of the use of this supply. I attach hereto a copy of a memo from D. S. Caverly, general manager of OWRC, regarding this matter. You will note that it is a most unsatisfactory report and it would appear that little or nothing has been done to correct the situation.” This is two and a half years later. Then he goes on:

“Inco, of course, is more or less noted for their apathy for problems such as this.” The minister wrote that: “their apathy.”

But let me go on to another letter in that file written by the minister’s executive assistant:

“You will recall numerous complaints by Martel and Falkowski regarding the quality of water at the Copper Cliff smelter of Inco. I have now received the attached report from Dave Caverly which, in fact, admits” -- get this -- “that everything these gentlemen have been saying is true.”

There were two and a half years of denial. This ministry finally, in all these inter-office memos, makes a mistake and sends me the whole file.

Mr. Gaunt: In a brown envelope.

Mr. Martel: In a brown envelope.

Then it says: “I am absolutely shocked to think that what we are apparently doing is requiring Inco to take interim measures only to improve the water distribution in the smelter.”

He goes on in the second paragraph: “You will notice that Inco has apparently done nothing to proceed with the construction of the water treatment plant to improve the system, although a consulting engineer was hired in 1969.”

In his final sentence he says: “Is it any wonder that the people vote NDP in the Sudbury area?”

That was the minister’s executive assistant saying, in effect, we’ve denied everything these men have said for two and a half years and lo and behold, we are now prepared to admit it. Because it got into my hands, six months later there was a new drinking water system at Inco. If we had never got this file, I suspect the people would still be drinking bad water. Am I expected to have faith that this ministry is going to do anything or that I’ll get apologies from this minister? They are going to wait until they can get everyone involved.

I’m not talking to the acid rain problem now, but the control order should have remained in place right from the beginning. My colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) will speak to this in a few moments. The control order should have been left in place. But Inco spent all its time and money somewhere else, regardless of the devastation in the Sudbury basin.

I must say it’s interesting too that the former member for Sudbury didn’t want me to speak about these issues in the House.

Mr. Laughren: Who was that?

Mr. Martel: Elmer Sopha. He said: “The member is right. The minister should correct it, but the member does not need to take the time of the House to discuss these matters.” If they don’t want to discuss it in the House, where else do they discuss it?

Mr. Minister, I want to tell you I was one of the few people who opposed the superstack. I have never supported the superstack. When the former Minister of Health, Matt Dymond, made that big announcement, I said: “The area that has been ravaged will now get a little rest. But they’re going to spread it further out to areas less capable of accepting that kind of emission. You’re simply going to spread it out and cause the destruction somewhere else.” I was right.

I prayed for years, I must say, that we would get the proper wind inversions and all the atmospheric conditions that would bring it to southern Ontario. I prayed for it, and my prayers have been answered, because it’s now devastating Muskoka and it’s going to devastate other areas.

That interim measure -- and that’s what the stack was, an interim measure in 1969 -- became a permanent thing. Inco has taken its money and gone off to the United States to buy ESB, to buy a chromium plant, to buy anything it wants. But it won’t save the area.

Mr. Kerrio: How would they make those moon shots, Elie?

Mr. Martel: We don’t need them, but they’re going to have them pretty soon in Niagara. Does my friend know what’s going to happen? Some day the wind inversion is going to be correct. It’s going to be in the spring, when all the fruits are in flower. What’s going to happen? It’s going to brown the whole thing out and, for that year, we ain’t going to have any fruit.

Mr. Kerrio: They’re going to be in big trouble if that happens.

Mr. Martel: They should have been in big trouble a long time ago.

Mr. Kerrio: They can’t get away with that.

Mr. Martel: But over the years this ministry has been in the hip pocket of Inco, and there isn’t a minister who has had the courage to take them on. They could have controlled it. The interesting aspect is that every time they have knocked down the control order, it has been when the House wasn’t in session. Was that by design in 1972, 1974 and on other occasions when we couldn’t get at it? Every time there has been an announcement that they are going to relax it for a while, it has been when the House wasn’t in session.

This ministry in its relationship to Inco is a disgrace. It must and can only move -- and forget about the stage it’s at -- to enforce that order, and the sooner it enforces it, the better off it is going to be. For a change, they might tell Inco to reinvest some of its money in Canada where it is going to do some good.

Mr. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the standing committee on resources development, I feel it is imperative to speak on this issue, which is of great concern to all of us. Its effects are felt not in just one area of Ontario but also reach into every centre of this province. In spite of what the honourable members of the opposition might say, this government does not control the winds and rains, but let me assure them that this government has and is and will continue to upgrade its regulations to ensure that the precious wealth and natural resources which we enjoy in this province will be preserved.

The speaker for the third party mentioned the serious concern that is created by Inco -- and it is a concern -- but one thing he neglected to mention is that when Inco was on strike for nine months, what was the difference? How much did acid precipitation decline? There was no difference. And where did it show up? Haliburton.

Most members will agree it is not a problem that can be attributed directly to Inco, but it is a worldwide problem. It is a problem that is certainly international. Inco is considered one of the major contributors -- and there is no denying this -- but we must also consider the fact that any large American city will produce as much sulphur dioxide as Inco does.

To begin with, I would like to point out that we in Ontario have been fairly fortunate as far as the acid rain problem is concerned. Unlike jurisdictions in Europe, we have been given plenty of warning about the effect acid rain can have on the environment and the potential danger of its continued proliferation. For example, as early as 1974 a rain storm in Scotland dropped precipitation that had the acidic equivalent of vinegar, a pH value of 2.4. The pH value of acid rain in Ontario, however, has been about 100 times less than that level. Thanks to the early warnings we have had about acid rain in Ontario, the Ministry of the Environment has been able to act quickly to meet the challenge this precipitation has brought to our environment.

In 1976 the Ontario government started a monitoring program so that we could understand the situation in the province, and to help make predictions about the future effects of acid rain. In fact, our monitoring program preceded that of the United States by two years.

Mr. Martel: They were monitoring 20 years ago.

Mr. J. Johnson: This monitoring of conditions is important work in the battle against acid rain. Until now there have been no year-to-year studies on the chemical composition of rainfall.

Mr. Mackenzie: Inco knows where you stand. You are on record.

Mr. J. Johnson: How come you people know the answers to everything?

Until now, there has been nothing that could provide us with a clear picture of the acid rain problems in the province as a whole.

As soon as the results of the monitoring are assembled, we will know what the state of the rivers and lakes is, as well as the strength of acid rain in the various regions. Armed with this information, the Ontario government will be able to go to industry in other jurisdictions and show them in detail the results of acid rain in this province.

[8:45]

While we await these results, we must not lose sight of the international aspect of the problem. For example, in the Muskoka region, one of the portions of Ontario particularly vulnerable to acid rain, the Ministry of the Environment has discovered that only 20 per cent of the pollution contributing to acid rain in that area came from Ontario. This means that 80 per cent of the pollution that caused acid rain in Muskoka comes from outside the province.

Mr. Kerrio: Let’s declare war on them Yankees. Let’s go after them.

Mr. J. Johnson: If my friend had sat on the committee, maybe he would have heard some of this.

Mr. Kerrio: I heard it. I know where it’s coming from.

Mr. J. Johnson: The results of this Muskoka study match those made by other groups -- in fact, two other reports, one prepared by the United States-Canada research consultation group on the long-range transportation of air pollutants and the final report of the resources development committee.

The total Canadian sulphur emissions are about one fifth of those in the United States, while the release of nitrogen oxide into our atmosphere is slight in comparison with the figures from south of the border. It is these figures that have caused me to look with concern at recent developments in the United States and, in particular, President Carter’s proposed changes to American power generation.

The President’s pledge to build about 100 new coal-fired generating stations will only increase the acid problem in Ontario as well as in the northeast United States. In fact, according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, emissions from coal-fired stations are the largest single contributor to sulphur emissions in the United States.

To compound the situation, miners’ unions and environmentalists are forcing utilities to use soft coal mined in Pennsylvania, coal that is heavily impregnated with traces of sulphur. This situation proves how complex any solution to the acid rain problem will have to be. This is a problem whose scope crosses not just economic and social boundaries, but political ones as well.

Many have said the Ontario government should have shut down industries that are emitting sulphur and nitrogen oxide as soon as it was evident the acid rain problem was serious.

I disagree with that view. The point is that until the results of our monitoring programs and those of other jurisdictions are fully assimilated, no one knows what effect Ontario industries -- in particular, Inco -- are having on the environment of our province and the northeastern United States.

This lack of information has not prevented the Ontario government from taking some initiative in the problem. We have approached the federal government and the governments in the neighbouring American states and have found them in accord with our views about the seriousness of the problem and the need for some kind of international agreement to solve it.

Fortunately, the solution to the acid rain problems can only be made at the international level, and I hope members opposite have sense enough to recognize that.

Mr. Martel: We’ve got more sense than that.

Mr. J. Johnson: No state or province acting on its own will find a solution to acid rain, either in its jurisdiction or in anybody else’s.

As the International Joint Commission’s initiatives to clean up the Great Lakes seems to be succeeding at a far greater rate than was previously considered, Ontario must work with the federal government, the government of the United States and the governments of each individual state to work out a solution to acid rain. If our solution to the problem is to be both effective and lasting, I believe this is the only path we can take.

At this point I would like to quote an article from the Toronto Star of Tuesday, October 23. The headline states, “Great Lakes Cleanup Surprises Scientists.” It says:

“Great Lakes are becoming clean much faster than biologists had predicted, new Canadian and US scientific studies show. The effects will be seen in Lake Ontario within eight years.

“The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States said yesterday scientists’ original calculations failed to include sedimentation as a natural water purifier. The new studies show it will take less than two decades, rather than centuries, for all the lakes, except Lake Superior, to be purged naturally of excess nutrients.

“The new findings are based on a computer study by Dr. Steven Chapra, a US scientist, and research by the Centre for Inland Waters in Canada.”

It goes on to say: “The effects will be felt in Lake Erie within a year, in Ontario and Huron in eight years, in Lake Michigan in 13 years and in Superior in 32 years.”

Hopefully, with the combined efforts of all parties, similar results will be forthcoming on our acid rain problems here in Ontario.

Mr. Eakins: As one who represents an area of Ontario very greatly concerned with acidic precipitation and as one very much interested in the tourism industry, I would like to rise and speak briefly in regard to this report.

In the past weeks and even months, acid rain has dominated the concerns not only of dedicated environmentalists in this province but of many citizens as evidence comes forth indicating the potential to destroy our farm crops, our forests, our fish stock and the aquatic life which inhabits our lakes and rivers. It is invisible, one can’t smell it, feel it or even taste it, but it is there and it is one of the most serious environmental problems facing us today.

This acidic precipitation, known to us as acid rain, is threatening and destroying life in thousands of lakes in eastern Canada. This acidity is also suspected of stunting forest growth and spoiling plant foliage. We are told it can corrode the metal on a car and even eat away a building. Human health may also be affected.

The effects of acidic precipitation are slow but sure and many of these effects are irreversible. The problem must be tackled before it is too late. We know in some cases nature can cope with this problem. We know that lakes with limestone bottoms are able to buffer or neutralize the acid. Some hard-water lakes contain compounds which neutralize the acid. But large areas of Ontario and other areas of Canada have lakes which do not have much limestone and which are not well buffered. These are the lakes which end up crystal clear but lifeless graveyards. We know buffering materials such as limestone can be added, but such treatment is only short term and may not regenerate aquatic life.

As the member representing a large affected area, the counties of Victoria and Haliburton, I am naturally greatly concerned for the future of our lakes and for the future of the tourism industry. I think all too often too many people in our province and perhaps here in the Legislature do not fully appreciate what the tourism industry means to the economy of this province. It means something in the neighbourhood of $5.5 billion. It means something around 400,000 jobs. It would be interesting to know, through the minister, how many jobs have been affected, especially in northern Ontario, in Victoria-Haliburton and in the area of Algonquin Park, which have already been affected by the problems of acid rain.

I hope in the days and weeks ahead the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) will make a very strong approach and pitch to the minister on behalf of this great industry, for it is the second largest industry in Ontario and one which cannot be taken lightly. It needs a greater profile and a greater priority, and that cannot come about unless we meet head on the problems of this acidic precipitation.

Haliburton county, as I have mentioned, is very dependent on the tourism and hospitality industry. The potential job loss must not be underestimated. The loss of what might be considered a few jobs in some larger urban areas can spell economic disaster and hardship for a county like Haliburton, which is dependent, almost totally, on the tourist industry.

Mr. Speaker, when questioned in this House by my leader, the Premier (Mr. Davis) almost always refers to the possible loss of jobs if action were taken against Inco. I can only say I wish the Premier would turn his attention to the county of Haliburton and other areas of Ontario where their livelihood is so dependent on clean environment. The counties I represent, Mr. Speaker, and especially Haliburton, desperately need more development and more jobs, not the potential for a loss in employment.

At the recent conference in Toronto it was pointed out that acid precipitation and its damages will continue to escalate as Canadian and US industries shift toward a greater reliance on coal. It is important, therefore, that each country immediately adopt and implement a control policy for both new and existing sources to reduce the overall atmospheric loads of sulphur and nitrogen oxide to less than 50 per cent of present levels within 10 years and continue further reductions as soon as possible. As one vitally interested in the tourism industry, I agree that government must educate the general public and especially the threatened agriculture, tourism and forest industries about the dangers of acid precipitation and encourage public participation in government decision-making.

We look to you, Mr. Minister, for leadership and you have our full co-operation.

Mr. Laughren: It gives me great pleasure to follow the Liberal speaker. I was just sitting here scanning some old press clippings -- not so old, as a matter of fact; the Standard of Elliot Lake, Wednesday, October 31, 1979. “Al Stong; MPP for York Centre” -- he is a Liberal -- “visited Inco Saturday and left the company convinced that Inco and its representatives ‘are just as concerned as we are in the south.’” Further on, ‘“I am going to suggest,’ he says, ‘in caucus that perhaps we should monitor the situation with the help of people in the industry.’” And further: “‘They always have the alternative of shutting down. If it is too expensive to run the operation, they will just shut down and what happens to northern Ontario then?’” The member for York Centre perhaps should be sitting in the seat Mr. Sopha sat in at one time. They had similar concerns about the pollution of the environment as a result of Inco’s superstack.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I supported the superstack, unlike my colleague for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), who didn’t want it, was I felt if we could ever get the pollution, the SO₂ out of the Sudbury basin, we would have some concern expressed in Ontario. As long as it was left with the people in Sudbury to swallow, there was not going to be a major issue in this province over SO₂ emissions from Inco’s superstack.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the problem of acid rain coming from SO₂ emitted from the Inco superstack is not a complicated problem. It is not like the problem of the deaths on the highways, which is a very complicated problem because we know the tradeoff is a very difficult one for society to deal with. It’s not as complicated, for example, as the whole nuclear question. It is a complicated phase of tradeoffs that must be made there. In the case of acid rain as it reflects on the operations of Inco Limited, it is not at all a complicated issue. It is simply a case of whether or not Inco Limited will be required to pay for cleaning up its operation and reducing the level of emissions from its superstack. It’s as simple as that. It’s not a question of whether they can afford it. It’s not a question of whether the technology is available. We know it is. Inco knows it is. The minister knows it is. So the debate is not about whether the solutions are possible but rather who shall pay for the solution.

There are options in terms of who shall pay. It can be the public, through increased medical costs, because that is a factor. It could be the public through lost tax revenues from a tourist industry that suffers, as my colleague from Victoria-Haliburton talked about. There is lumbering. The whole small business community suffers because of the high standards. A federal report, disputed though it is, indicated the costs were $400 million a year. That was the social and economic cost of the sulphur dioxide emissions from Sudbury -- $400 million a year.

Interjection.

[9:00]

Mr. Laughren: The minister can dispute those figures if he likes but would he put new ones in their place? The minister has failed to do that.

The alternative of course is that the polluter pay. The polluter will pay. That is the option with which the minister has refused to deal.

While I was wandering aimlessly through a library, I came upon a report commissioned in 1947 by the Ontario Minister of Mines. The name of the Ontario Minister of Mines in 1947 was Leslie Frost. The report was done by the Ontario Research Foundation, by Mr. R. J. Cole, and in it he talks about SO₂ emissions:

“The present discussion is limited in another direction, that of the damage caused by sulphur gases and smelter fumes. Sulphur gases may be removed from fumes to recover a valuable byproduct and prevent damage. The question of how much damage is caused by the smelter fumes in northern Ontario and what amounts of sulphur gases can be safely emitted to the atmosphere is beyond the scope of this report. However, it does not appear probable that all of the sulphur gases can be removed or recovered without serious financial loss.”

There we were 32 years ago. The same argument is being made by this government -- they must not make people pay those kinds of costs. That was 32 years ago.

By the way, in those days, about 2.5 million tons a year were being emitted. Now about 1.3 million tons are being emitted each year. If we accept the minister’s argument, just as it was made 30 years ago, the same argument will be put to us 30 years from now, because this government never seems to change.

I lent this minister an Inco document with which he is quite familiar by now. If he isn’t, it is called Inco SO₂ Abatement Budget Book, dated in 1975. In that book they made it clear it was quite possible to reduce their emissions to, in their words, 3,800 tons a day by October 1975; by December 1978, 2,000 tons a day; and by December 1979, 1,500 tons a day. In that report, they said it would cost $299,198,000.

Then they sent a letter to the regional director, northeastern region, Mr. R. A. Moore, and they said, “Within the past few weeks, this engineering work, with the necessary corollary cost estimation, has revealed an increase in capital cost which indicates that our May estimate of $200 million must be increased to at least $300 million and considerably more if potential necessary additions to the sintering equipment prove to be necessary.”

Finally, “This situation obviously requires a complete reassessment of our position, since the economic and commercial feasibility of the proposed project has fundamentally changed.”

And here is the crunch: “A program which is not economically and commercially feasible is in fact not technologically feasible.”

What did the minister do? The minister tabled that letter four years later -- four years later -- in the committee hearings. He has tabled no other document to indicate whether they believed that statement in 1975, whether in 1975 they felt it really was unfair to force Inco to pay $300 million. He has done absolutely nothing. That was in 1975 and the control order was imposed in 1970.

During the eight years to the point where he let the control order go down the pipe, Inco earned $1.4 billion in profits and invested more than $1 billion outside this country and the minister says the company cannot afford to do anything about the emissions.

We simply do not believe that. This ministry, without a doubt, is the most secretive ministry on the face of the earth, and if ever this freedom of information legislation is applied to this ministry, the majority of the senior people in this ministry would suffer nervous breakdowns within a month because they will not share information with members of the Legislature. They will not table information. The minister has tabled no further information on what happened in 1975 to indicate why they so readily bought Inco’s argument. To this date, he has tabled absolutely no other information, either.

We find that unacceptable and we say to the minister it is time he acted in the mandate of his responsibility and imposed a new control order on Inco Limited. It is time he told Inco the control order, which never should have been lifted, is going to be reimposed and within four years -- giving them a lead time of four years -- they must bring in new processes to reduce the level of emissions to 1,500 tons. Then we will work on getting down from 1,500 tons.

But the minister has not even made a commitment that a new control order will even be imposed. He just sits there. He’s lacking one of two things. He’s lacking either the courage to do it or a commitment to the environment.

Let him tell us what it is. Let him tell us why he thinks $300 million is an unacceptable price tag for Inco to pay. We’d like to hear it. We’d like to see some information tabled.

Mr. Speaker, I’ll tell you that 1975 document shows it is not even debatable that Inco was prepared to go through with the control order. In this document they had already spent $23,578,000. They’d spent that already and were prepared, because the summary says, “Total cost estimate, $299,198,000; total appropriation to date, $23,578,000; appropriation required for outstanding work, $275,620,000.” That was what was left to spend.

There’s no question that Inco was prepared to do it. I’m sure they almost fell over in the boardroom when we assumed that they responded to this letter by saying, “You’re quite right, fellows. Don’t worry. Sit back and relax.” Not only that, the ministry never told anyone in 1975 they’d received this letter. They never told anyone in 1975 they were going to lift the control order. They must have known in 1975. That’s a secretive ministry. By God, I hope that some day freedom of information laws apply to this minister and this ministry of government because it is outrageous, simply outrageous, that he’s done all the bargaining on SO₂ emissions behind closed doors. You can imagine whose doors they were, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, the resources development committee in their deliberations this past summer and fall have covered a number of very interesting topics. We were involved in a situation concerning acid rain. We were involved in the situation with Ontario Hydro boilers and also the Reed paper company. Throughout those deliberations, all of which had some effect on the Ministry of the Environment, one thing I found was that the minister and ministry officials tried to be frank with us. They tried to provide us all the information.

Mr. Laughren: They didn’t.

Mr. Eaton: I think the member is being a bit unfair, particularly when he attacks the minister the way he does.

Mr. Laughren: We’re gentle on them.

Mr. Eaton: I read for instance the member’s press release of tonight which says, “Now the Minister of Environment is weaseling again.” He’s saying the ministry doesn’t have all the facts and they won’t do anything more about Inco, which is the largest source of sulphur dioxide in North America.

This minister has never been one to weasel on any issue and the members opposite know that.

Mr. Laughren: No, I don’t.

Mr. Eaton: The member certainly does. He is really hypocritical when he gets up in the House and talks that way, because down there he will talk to them and say, “You’re really doing a fine job; keep working with us this way.” He won’t say it publicly. He puts out ridiculous statements like that. He makes ridiculous statements.

Interjections.

Mr. Eaton: He puts out a press release that says, “Acid rain is our number one environmental problem and this government has to take immediate obvious steps to cut down sulphur dioxide.” He never says what those obvious steps are.

Interjections.

Mr. Eaton: He never tries to. He puts out information in that thing, like the report of the company he has which says they could reduce it. He talked about that report. Let’s talk a little bit about that report of the company.

They did give an indication, in May 1975, that they could make a reduction to 1,500 tons a day. They thought they could, with the knowledge they had.

Mr. Laughren: Money -- money only.

Mr. Eaton: They indicated the cost, as the member mentioned, which they thought was $300 million. Digging into the matter it comes out that those figures amounted to almost three times that.

Mr. Laughren: Where do you get that?

Mr. Eaton: I have the figures here.

Mr. Martel: Table the stuff.

Mr. Eaton: I have the figures right here. They tripled or quadrupled. They could have quadrupled.

Mr. Martel: Table it.

Mr. Eaton: Okay, I have it right here. I am reading it to the member. It’s on the record now.

Mr. Martel: I want to see the document.

Mr. Eaton: Okay. With that kind of cost to be faced, other possibilities were considered.

In July 1976, for instance, Inco made a proposal to cut the levels down to 3,100 tons by the end of 1980, at a cost of approximately $160 million. They also requested at that time to have the opportunity to increase to 3,800 tons -- when it had already reduced to 3,600 -- until that 1980 period. The then Minister of the Environment took a firm stand on it and said, “No. We are not going to allow you to go above the figure that has been set.”

Look again at some of the facts. Members over there are criticizing the fact that nothing is happening. But let’s look at the record. Since the control orders were issued in 1973 -- in fact, they were put on before 1973 -- to get down to 3,600 tons, Inco got down to 3,600 three years before they were supposed to under the orders. Yet the members opposite say the ministry is not concerned and the company is not concerned. They are concerned, as we all are, and are working towards those goals.

Mr. Samis: What did they do?

Mr. Warner: Corporate apologist.

Mr. Eaton: I am not making any apologies. They have done something and we have done something. I don’t have to apologize for action.

Mr. Warner: Sure you are. You are apologizing for Inco. You’re in their back pocket and you know it.

Mr. Martel: What have they done?

Mr. Laughren: Friends of Inco.

Mr. Eaton: Nobody is trying to be a friend of anyone in a particular case. We are trying to see that a job is done properly and responsibly. A reference was made as well to the fact that in the committee we didn’t support putting on certain orders. That’s right; we didn’t. Members were arbitrarily pulling figures out of the air and saying, “Okay, that’s where you will have to be.” Whether the technology is there to do it, whether it is economically feasible, you say, “Do it.” The responsible action is to work at it to find the technology that is available and to help develop the technology to do the job.

Mr. Samis: Postpone -- delays.

Mr. Eaton: There were many things in committee we all agreed on.

Mr. Laughren: That was to adjourn.

Mr. Martel: You are wasting valuable time.

Mr. Eaton: I am going to keep on wasting it as long as you are interjecting. Nobody said anything while you were talking. We listened to you.

Mr. Samis: If you can’t stand the heat, Bob, you know where to go.

Mr. Eaton: I will keep wasting time. As long as you are talking, I’m not going to.

Mr. Samis: Harry Truman was right.

Mr. Laughren: If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Mr. Martel: It’s your time to use, Bob. It’s divided equally, so if you don’t want to speak, that’s fine.

Mr. Eaton: I think we worked very well together on this problem during the committee sessions, all parties, because we had an objective of trying to do something about a serious problem.

Mr. Martel: That’s why you lifted the control order.

Mr. Eaton: We had an objective of trying to do something about a serious problem. On many of the points, the committee agreed and worked together. We took immediate action at times.

I remember the night we sent a telegram to the honourable minister -- I think it got to him at about six in the morning -- at the time he was meeting the federal Minister of the Environment to try to get something done on that problem, to focus some attention on it.

Mr. Kerrio: Was that a federal Tory?

Mr. Eaton: I heard a remark across the floor about them doing something about it now.

Mr. Kerrio: Well, they better get with it. They’ve had enough time.

Mr. Eaton: The members opposite had their cousins in there for a long time, and they didn’t do anything about it. Now we’ve got some people who will co-operate with us.

[9:15]

Interjections.

Mr. Eaton: As I mentioned a minute ago, the reason we didn’t support that one item was because members were plucking arbitrary figures out of the air.

Mr. Makarchuk: What kind of figures?

Mr. Kerrio: What were you doing with the figures?

Mr. Eaton: I know it sounds like a variation on the theme to talk about studies, but I want to assure the members opposite that our Sudbury basin investigations have been very painstaking.

Mr. Martel: Have you read Dreisinger?

Mr. Eaton: Yes. You want to keep referring to away back. Let’s look at what’s been done.

Mr. Martel: You’ve known about it for all these years.

Mr. Eaton: I think we are only now receiving some of the data showing some of the variations that might take place.

Mr. Kerrio: We’re not only getting the data; we’re getting the acid rain. The data, we’re not concerned about.

Mr. Eaton: I think we’ve seen the actions that have taken place over a number of years -- the reduction that’s there.

Mr. di Santo: That is not a particularly good performance.

Mr. Eaton: Those opposite would indicate that the minister doesn’t wish to do anything about it and isn’t doing anything about it. I think there is a continuing process going on between the ministry and officials at Inco to do things.

Mr. Warner: That’s the source of the problem.

Mr. Eaton: That’s right. We have to work with the source of the problem. Those people over there are such dreamers. They think tomorrow we’ll do that. And that isn’t possible.

Mr. Makarchuk: Keep it up and we’ll have the doctor prescribe some Valium for you.

Mr. Eaton: Throughout the series of control orders they’ve had on there we’ve seen action and we’ve seen gains. We’ll continue to do that by working at it -- by working at the problems with facts and information.

Mr. Makarchuk: For how long?

Mr. Eaton: You can’t do it just by stating you’re going to do something, and it’s done.

Mr. Martel: You haven’t read Dreisinger. Not one document.

Mr. Makarchuk: Have you read anything recently?

Mr. Eaton: He’s so knowledgeable. He’s an instant expert on everything.

Mr. Martel: You’d better check the record.

Mr. Eaton: This government is committed to taking action on these problems. We’re seeing that action taking place and we’ll continue to see it take place in a reasonable and responsible manner. The kind of action those members try to promote is attacking the minister, who is doing a good job.

Mr. Makarchuk: What’s he doing?

Mr. Eaton: But it doesn’t hinder the progress that is being made --

Mr. Makarchuk: Name one thing he’s done.

Mr. Eaton: -- on some of these projects.

Ontario has taken the leadership in many of the areas concerning acid rain.

Mr. Makarchuk: Name one.

Mr. Eaton: We’ve been making them. But the opposition doesn’t listen.

Mr. Warner: That’s right out of the Inco handbook.

Mr. Eaton: Facts mean nothing to those members. They don’t want to use facts. They saw the facts that were just put out a very short time ago but they still want to deny them.

This government has acted in a responsible manner. It will continue to act and continue to show the leadership -- even show the leadership to the US on some of the controls that can be put on acid rain. The US is where a major share of Ontario’s problem is coming from.

So those members should not be so self-righteous in some of their statements. They should work with the minister; give credit where credit is due and work with him to see that the job is done.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to participate in this debate. I certainly am very concerned about the problem as it relates to acid precipitation.

Very recently, within the last week or 10 days, there has been a great deal of discussion and argument among some of the most famous scientists in the world as to the age of this planet. They are about three million or four million years apart in their estimates on when this planet was formed. So when we talk in terms of the inception of the planet we live on, we’re talking in terms of millions of years. It seems incredible that we could pollute this environment in one generation -- not much more than 40 years -- coincidental with this party on the other side being in power.

Interjections.

Mr. Kerrio: It’s the simple truth. It is a very simple truth -- hard to buy, but the truth hurts.

Mr. Mackenzie: Thirty-six years and 95 days of acid rain.

Interjections.

Mr. Kerrio: And then this government sets itself up as a free-enterprise party. That’s an affront to the small businessman with integrity. He is competitive, honest and gives good value for money while the companies we’re talking about, that the government is protecting, are monopolizing, fixing prices and polluting our environment. It becomes very difficult for a true free enterpriser to stand in his place and defend that way of life. But that is very true and truth in most instances hurts very much. The Minister of Education is shaking her head “no,” but I tell her, yes.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No.

Mr. Stong: She is the iron lady of Ontario.

Mr. Kerrio: An indictment of the pollution record can be related to a personal involvement I have.

I have some friends who are sons of three generations of people who have fished the lower Niagara River since 1835. One has recently had his licence lifted for selling polluted salmon. The man couldn’t pay the $3,000 fine. He wasn’t earning enough fishing because the government responsible for fisheries here had seen to it that the polluters had taken all the fish from our waterways. He couldn’t make a living at it.

This is a true story. I won’t mention names. But he had to go to some of his friends to raise the $3,000 fine the ministry assessed against this man. He still doesn’t have his licence.

That’s some kind of indictment against the people who would issue a licence and then fine the fisherman for selling polluted salmon. That’s the kind of thing that’s happening in our environment.

Mr. Laughren: Did he tell you that?

Mr. Kerrio: The pollution of the airways is very little less than what’s happening to the pollution of the waterways. There are people who take their job responsibly. I will be a little boastful about this involvement. This Saturday past I had a seminar in Niagara Falls that brought some very knowledgeable people to a forum that discussed our problems of environmental pollution. The minister was invited down but didn’t see fit to come.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Laughren: There’s nothing out of order.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The member opposite knew full well by Saturday -- and well in advance -- I had told him that on that day it was impossible for me to come. He has implied that I didn’t choose to come. That is not so, and I want the record changed.

Mr. Stong: It’s a question of principle.

Mr. Kerrio: Pierre Trudeau didn’t want to go to BC but they caught him at a disco dance at New York.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Is the member opposite saying I was engaged in a frivolous activity on Saturday?

Interjections.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: I’m suggesting the minister should have come to my forum and not gone dancing.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: If I thought the member would be disco dancing I might have, but if he was going to put on the kind of show he did I’m afraid, as I told him earlier, I had other duties to perform. I wish he would correct the record.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I think my point is well made and I would like to continue. I would like to suggest that when members take a responsible position -- and I am suggesting to you, sir, that I did, and to that end I would like to read this into the record, because then the minister can draw his own conclusions as to whether he should have been represented, whether he should have come himself or sent someone else.

At the Cleaning Up the Great Lakes forum, Saturday past, we had Dr. R. Drynan, secretary of the Science Advisory Board of the International Joint Commission; we had Mr. Kenneth Walker, secretary of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board of the International Joint Commission; we had Barbara Morrison, environmental lawyer, Operation Clean; Mr. Joe Castrilli, representative from the Canadian Environmental Law Association; Dr. R. M. Roman, a medical man who has taken courses in the environmental problems as they relate to environmental medicine; Mr. Valdas Adamkus, deputy regional administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois; Professor Bob Sweeney, director of the Great Lakes Laboratory, State University College at Buffalo; Professor George Francis, Department of Man-Environment Studies, University of Waterloo; Professor Stephen Safe, chemistry department, University of Guelph; Professor Berkes, Institute of Urban and Environmental Studies at Brock University; and, relating to prospects for the future, Dr. Michael Dickman, Brock University, biological studies; Professor H. A. Regier, Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Toronto; Professor Halpern, University of Buffalo; and Dr. Peter Hodson, representative from the Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, with such a forum, does it speak too well of the interest of the environmental people in Ontario that they did not attend, after having been presented with the lineup of people who were going to be there to share the problems and help resolve some of the environmental problems that exist?

Mr. Haggerty: The minister is not concerned.

Mr. Kerrio: There are only a couple of other matters I would like to speak to. One of them has to do with a serious problem and it relates to what a former minister said to this forum. We took him at his word. He suggested that in future the polluter was going to pay, and as I suggested at the outset we took him at his word. We, the province of Ontario, entered into a lawsuit with one of the large chemical companies on the St. Clair River system, and I am sorry to say that while we had been talking about a multi-million-dollar lawsuit the settlement was in the range of a few hundred thousand dollars.

There are other jurisdictions that certainly aren’t living up to their responsibilities and I will share this with you. As recently as this morning there was an article in the paper about the building of a coal-fired generating plant in Saskatchewan. The government of that province has suggested that even in the face of an International Joint Commission proposal it is not our obligation to abide by the laws of a foreign jurisdiction.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that all jurisdictions, all provinces in Canada and all states in the United States of America, must make a commitment that we will put into place the technologies that do exist. They are a fact; that is not something we are speculating about. We must put into place the technology that exists so that we do not have to produce sulphuric acid and the acids that produce acid rain. I am not suggesting we can clean up those areas where it was produced in the past. That’s a longer-term commitment and I am reasonable about our commitment to meet those obligations, but I pose this to the minister directly: anything from this day forward should have a commitment that we will not put any plant into production that is producing any acid rain whatsoever. I think we should be able to meet that kind of commitment with our neighbours to the south.

[9:30]

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, acid rain is one of the modern environmental problems. Unlike the threat of sewage or polluted drinking water which we attacked in the last two decades, it is an insidious problem, not as obvious to the public in its dangers. Often the effects are only noticed after a long period, but it is potentially equally dangerous to our environment, to our health and to our ecology.

It is the sort of problem the Ministry of the Environment should be alert to and acting on even ahead of public awareness or public concern. I know the ministry has known for at least 10 years about the acidification of our rainfall and the effect on many lakes, particularly in the north and in the Sudbury region, but the action which has followed has been almost non-existent.

The public’s awareness of the acid rain problem has grown for a number of reasons. First of all, the great increase in the degree of acidification has produced alarming statistics that 48,000 of our lakes could be killed; that is, their aquatic and fish life will not reproduce; they could be killed within two decades.

Further, the long-range transport of emissions which are causing acid rain has brought the problem across this continent as far as the Maritimes, down to Metro Toronto and into the cottage country.

We went through the superstack syndrome. Though somebody said, “I think that I shall never see a smokestack lovely as a tree.” The philosophy was: solve pollution by dilution. That didn’t work. That simply spread acidification over a wider area.

Then the first reports started to come in that indicated more than lakes were involved. Just this fall we had a report from a US-Canadian research group that indicated there were potential dangers, not only to the lakes, but to our forests, our agricultural crops, our health possibly, our architecture and even our water systems through corrosion of pipes. While the data is not complete, there is enough evidence to indicate there is serious concern and the public is becoming well aware of that danger and expectation from its government.

I would like to show the members a recent poster on acid rain put out by the Canadian Nature Federation which says: “Acid rain is the most serious and urgent environmental problem we face. Ask your elected representatives for tough, new standards to prevent acid pollutants from entering the atmosphere for the sake of our lakes, rivers, crops, forests and lungs.” This poster shows smoke stacks rampant, rain falling, dead fish and automobiles.

The problem of acid rain would be solved if it could be solved by rhetoric. That seems to have been the level of some of the debate tonight, particularly the shouting match we had just preceding my speech by the member for Niagara Falls and the minister.

Mr. Laughren: He always lowers the level of debate.

Mr. Bradley: Don’t be so condescending over there.

Mr. Laughren: He is provocative.

Mr. Sterling: Why continue then?

Ms. Bryden: We really have a rhetorical game going on --

Mr. Sterling: Why continue it?

Ms. Bryden: -- between John Fraser, federal Minister of the Environment, and Harry Parrott. John Fraser says: “It’s a very serious problem, but of course the province has the power to put in the control orders over emissions. If they don’t act, we’ll act.” Then the Minister of the Environment in Ontario says: “It’s a very serious problem, but of course it doesn’t all come from Ontario sources, and therefore we must get an international agreement.” That puts it back in John Fraser’s court.

I will concede that the Ontario Minister of the Environment in his statement to the resources development committee on October 25 did go further and say, “Ontario is prepared to enforce the necessary controls in concert with control measures in other jurisdictions and we are also prepared to act singly and in advance of other jurisdictions.”

We still haven’t seen any advance action. It still appears he is waiting for John Fraser to get the international agreement going and we all know international agreements take at least 10 years to implement. It takes two or three years to negotiate and then there is the long-stage implementation. That happened in the water quality agreement. We do have to have action in Ontario beforehand.

The other statements from the minister recently are, I think, examples of rhetoric rather than action. I don’t know who his speech writers are but they seem to be masters of gobbledegook. Here is one of his statements: “Ontario has demonstrated its determination to find solutions.” Here is another one: Ontario’s priorities include “to develop effective air pollution abatement alternatives.” In his statement to the resources development committee of October 25, he says: “Options at present being considered include any combination of the following: low sulphur coal, hydrometallurgy, coal gasification, coal scrubbing, acid plants.” Sort of shuffle the deck and take your pick, but we’re going to do one of those things and we’re not sure which, is what it seems to say.

That is not going to get very much action. I think the real test of the commitment of the ministry to solving this problem is what they are going to do about Inco. My colleagues have already dealt with that in considerable depth.

We just can’t understand why the minister is so solicitous of Inco’s profits or health, particularly its profits. Inco says it can’t reduce its emissions any further. Sometimes it says it’s for economic reasons and sometimes for technical reasons, but the real question is, has the minister made an independent evaluation of these claims?

We find the poverty claims by Inco very hard to accept because it has taken billions out of its profits in the past and is still in a profit-making position. The fact is if Inco does not pay for the reduction of these emissions, the people of Ontario and North America pay the bill. We pay the bill for lost tourist revenue, lost recreational lakes, lost forest production and reduced agricultural yields. We could pay a bill for possible health damage, architectural damage and water-pipe corrosion. If Inco was made to pay these costs it would quickly find the money to reduce its emissions.

Why is the minister so reluctant to issue a new control order on Inco? Why is he protecting them? Why is he letting them externalize their costs onto the people of North America and the people of Ontario?

I say a minister of the environment who will not attack the largest source of sulphur dioxide in North America should resign. He shows no real concern for our environment or the threat of acid rain. Until he takes action on the Sudbury pollution his counterpart in the federal government cannot be expected to negotiate successfully with the US unless we are proceeding to clean up our own pollution here as soon as possible.

It was way back in February that the resources development committee held week-long sittings on the problems of acid rain and sulphur dioxide from Inco. The committee heard from many experts and produced a report that contained 15 recommendations for action.

All of the 11 recommendations on acid rain were adopted unanimously by this all-party committee, but practically none of them, except perhaps in the research field, have been adopted. Some speaker at an acid rain conference that I attended said that if you put all your money on research, you may be buying a ticket to an autopsy.

Of the four recommendations on sulphur dioxide in the committee’s report, none of them, as far as I can see, has been implemented; so that the committee’s work appears to be another report that is going to lie on the shelf unimplemented.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me we have had five Ministers of the Environment and nothing has been done on this problem; it is time perhaps that we ended this parade of ministers and changed not just the minister but the government.

Mr. G. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate as the other members have this evening. As one member has recently said, it may have reduced itself to rhetoric; however, I believe this government and this minister would not have it be reduced just to that.

It has been a very interesting debate, now drawing closer to its end. We have had the opportunity to see many reports, one of which is the most recent report of the resources development committee, which I have had the opportunity to read before and refresh my memory on the subject.

Mr. Bradley: Are you for or against acid rain?

Mr. G. Taylor: It’s a very excellent report again, but as I read the reports I come to the same conclusion on this report and the others which are a part of it, with the comments by the different witnesses, and that is that there is still a lack of information, a lack of preciseness, a lack of credibility as to what really is the final determination on how to correct this problem. We know there is a problem, we know something of how it is produced, we know some of its harmful effects; but we are still, even with today’s modern technology, short on ways to improve it, be it a way to improve it by way of a cost analysis, be it by way of technology; will it be too great an economic impact on the community? All of these things seem to be couched in the negative in the material put forward; it is not positive enough on the course to be followed, that here is the route, this is the way we want to go, this is the way it has to be done and this is the way it can be done. it is often difficult, in reading these reports, to get an explanation. I would like to express, also, something on what is happening in my own area in regard to this acid precipitation, because although it may be produced elsewhere, as with the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) it lies heavily upon the areas of the county of Simcoe and the Muskoka areas which are our tourist areas.

We receive acid precipitation and it is perceived by many cottagers as an economic concern given the value of their properties, but they also have a concern for the environment in that particular area. We get this precipitation from elsewhere, and there is no doubt that a great deal of it is produced from the stacks of Inco and from Nanticoke and other industrial sources that we have here, and I am sure the minister will be making a direct approach to them to reduce the amount of precipitation they are putting into the environment.

But I would like to bring to the attention of members taking part in this debate that although we are now using these new buzzwords “acid rain,” “acid precipitation,” it has been partly because of the concerns of this particular ministry and this government that there is a debate taking place on this subject --

[9:45]

Mr. Bradley: You were badgered into it by the opposition, and you know it.

Mr. G. Taylor: -- that is becoming the forefront of a concern of the people and the environmentalists of this province. Granted, we do know that a certain amount of this was not known in previous times. There has just been new technology, as I think the member for Niagara Falls mentioned. The world is no longer as old as it was thought to be at one time. As technology advances, so has it with this situation. The technology has advanced whereby now we know the causes and we know some of the rectifications that may take place, but these were not always with us.

I am pleased to see the Ministry of the Environment has been in the forefront in producing study papers. Their people have been examining the problem, testing the problem, and analysing the problem to look for possible solutions. They may not always be the best solutions. I am willing to admit, as I am sure the minister is, some of the solutions are not always easy and the answers are not always simple, But one has to look at them in the whole parameter of the situation, where one can say what are the sources. We know where the sources are -- not all of them precisely. All of them are interwoven through the entire economic fabric of the community. They cannot be taken in isolation.

I am sure the minister could say to us: “I can correct this particular problem. Here is the order. That place closes up tomorrow.” I am sure I wouldn’t, nor would many of the members in this House, want to take the gamble that one might put on an order, put a business out of operation and put the livelihood of many people out of this community when it is so necessarily needed in our industrial society and our economic society today.

We are not alone with this problem. It is a worldwide problem; it is a North American and Scandinavian problem. The European people are all aware of this problem and they are mounting their technology to try to correct it.

Mr. Bradley: What are we doing about it?

Mr. G. Taylor: There are certain items in the report that suggest that here is a possible relief of the situation. They take out this amount or that amount of scrubbers. Are they economically sound propositions for our community, for our industries and for our technology? Again, some of them are not.

I hope the minister will use all his argumentative ability and eloquence to bring about the changes needed in our own industries.

Mr. Bradley: All we need is action.

Mr. G. Taylor: When he expands those, will the minister use all his force to bring about a change at the federal level? He has already initiated that discussion with the federal people. He was one of the first to initiate this discussion with the federal government to bring about the concern that it was not only Ontario’s concern but it happened to be the concern of other provinces and of other countries.

Mr. Kerrio: John Fraser is useless. He is doing nothing.

Mr. Bradley: No, he’s bringing back capital punishment.

Mr. G. Taylor: The material that we look forward to is that he has brought forth this concern to the public of this province and of this country and to the two nations that contribute mostly to it, Canada and the United States.

I look upon what it does to my particular area in the Simcoe lake area.

Mr. Bradley: You should be demanding action.

Mr. G. Taylor: There are concerns about the fish life and about the recreational life. That should be a prime concern to this minister and to this government, and I am sure it is. But one must look at it in light of the entire situation.

Let’s look at some of the health concerns. I have heard it said around the table: “Sure, it is a problem when we get these lakes into a position where they shouldn’t be. It is a problem for the fish life, but not a problem to humans.” But there is a problem to humans. This is a human disaster if we allow the lakes to go any further so that the economic life is not supported. We are going to have problems with our human life after that.

Besides, there are the very personal things it may affect as we have those very definite health concerns. We have heard the member for Beaches-Woodbine talk about some of those problems, some of which are unsubstantiated totally and others substantiated totally, where there is a definite problem to the health of the individuals when they get acid precipitation and problems of acid in their water systems.

There is the whole ecological system in our area which supports a great deal of market gardening. Not only is there the acidic precipitation problem, but also there are other problems of environmental concern. There is a whole report on the Simcoe-Couchiching basin that is not going unnoticed by this government, and changes are going to be made.

I find when all these reports are going forward, somebody points to somebody else and says, whether it be municipal, provincial or federal, there is a cost to pay. Each government seems to look at the other to bear a substantial burden of that cost or a substantial responsibility.

I submit it is all our responsibility. It is further our responsibility to make sure the money is there because it is our future -- our children’s future, our grandchildren’s future. As we so often hear in this assembly, it is not just our personal concern we’re to be cognizant of but the concerns of other people who may come after us.

I recently received a letter from some young students and newspaper columnists in my area who are concerned about acidic precipitation. My concern was that they were not totally informed of the problem -- what this government is doing, and what this minister is doing and what the resources committee had already done in regard to acidic precipitation.

Mr. Kerrio: You’re trying to wiggle your way out of that one. Why don’t you be honest with those students?

Mr. G. Taylor: I brought to their attention what has been done, showing them where they can get source material and what is available to them. So I hope this group of some 40 constituents -- including young students, young adults, and newspaper columnists -- are better informed about acidic precipitation that may be affecting them and others in this province.

I hope this minister will continue to take his concerns to the federal level -- bringing to bear his concerns and the concerns of this Legislature about acidic precipitation. I hope he does not let it sit idle and let the federal members concerned use some gymnastics to get out of the problem. It is more than a local problem.

As others have said, we allow too little time for such an enormous subject as this. However, the rules of this Legislature must be observed. I wish I had more time to speak of the problem, but I end my comments there.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of sitting on the committee that was looking into this problem of acid precipitation. As one who likes to travel into northern Ontario for a week or two each year just to get away from the frustrations of this place -- frustrations caused mainly by this government’s continual procrastination on matters such as environmental cleanup -- I was shocked to learn that about 48,000 lakes are expected to turn acidic in the next 20 years unless the provincial government, through assistance from the federal government, is able to negotiate successfully with the United States a policy for cutting back sulphur emissions.

It is generally accepted that a lake, once it has become acidic, is virtually irrecoverable. A strange irony of nature is that acidic lakes look pure because they are so clear, but this is an illusion; they are clear because for all practical purposes they are dead.

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment has said that approximately 80 per cent of the acidic compounds that fall on Ontario are from the United States. We heard this time and time again when we were on the committee. But since then we have heard that Ontario could be responsible for 40 per cent or even 50 per cent of the pollution. So we really can’t blame the United States the way the minister has been inclined to do.

He’s been using this assertion about 20 per cent of the pollution being from Ontario as an excuse for us to give up on the cleanup. However, it is now generally appreciated that Ontario is sending its acid rain down to the United States -- for example, to the Adirondack Mountains. This means that even though we may not be the biggest source of our own acidic precipitation, we are sending our acid rain to the United States. We cannot very well turn around and ask them to stop dumping theirs here unless we are prepared to clean up at the same time.

In fact, Americans are quick to point out that the largest single-point-source emitter of sulphur dioxide is Inco in Sudbury. This company emits approximately 3,600 tons per day of sulphur dioxide. In 1972 when Inco built a higher stack at its smelter operation in Sudbury, this stack simply served to send the pollution further afield.

Oddly enough, the very areas of this province where we conduct most of our tourist industry, where we do most of our fishing, and where we have located our cottage land, are precisely those areas, because of the geology involved, that are most vulnerable to acidic precipitation. Areas such as Haliburton Highlands, Lake Simcoe, Algonquin Park and Quetico Park are located on bedrock that has what we call low buffering capacity. By low buffering capacity we mean areas that, once the acidic input begins to batter them, do not have, within their natural makeup, material that can help neutralize this increased acidity.

In 1970, the Ministry of the Environment here in Ontario told Inco to get its sulphur dioxide emissions down from approximately 6,500 tons per day to 750 tons per day by December 31, 1978. However, last summer the ministry extended Inco’s control order and Inco was still putting out the previously mentioned 3,600 tons per day.

Inco is not the only source of the acid rain problem. As mentioned earlier, coal-fired generating stations also produce sulphur dioxide that turns into acid rain. However, it is difficult to ask other companies and public utilities in the province to clean up their pollution if Inco has been given an extension to its pollution control order.

At least 140 lakes in Ontario are known to be in serious trouble today because of acidic rainfall. These lakes are unable to support a sports fish population. There is also strong reason to believe this shift in the balance of pH in our lakes and rivers increases the load of mercury and other heavy metals that are taken up by the fish. Scientists have discovered that the lower the pH, the more readily are mercury and other heavy metals released.

We cannot begin to assess the economic impact of acidic precipitation on tourism and recreation in this province. We have to move very swiftly. Generally speaking, when confronted with provincial problems, we have some lead time, but biologists and experts from the University of Toronto, especially those who have testified in the Legislature, have said our lead time is over. If we accept that 48,000 lakes are going to become biologically sterile over the next 15 to 20 years, if we do a little mathematics, what this means is in one week alone 48 lakes become acidified in Ontario. That is approximately seven lakes a day.

Obviously, in science it doesn’t quite happen this way on a weekly basis. It is more likely that every few weeks several hundred lakes become acidified. If we think of it as 48 lakes per week, which is really what we are saying for purposes of making this issue understandable, then indeed we have a very serious problem.

Some people have talked about liming the lakes as one possible answer to the acid rain problem, but the research to date has shown this is neither effective nor economical, and is certainly no alternative on a broad scale.

Last summer the Toronto Star published an article that showed the movement of the Sudbury plume. This plume of pollution was shown to leave the upper Inco stack at Sudbury at about 5:30 p.m. and to arrive at Toronto at about 11:30 the next day. Citizens of this province have always been told it is the polluter who will pay. In fact, the history of various pollution escapades has shown it is the victim who pays.

Victims in this example are cottages, the tourist industry, the sports fish industry and we now know it also includes the farming industy and the forest industry. We know this because a team of Canadian and United States scientists recently reported for the first time that acid rain is affecting vegetable crops and forests. They said the environmental damage is spread over a larger geographic area than was first thought.

The most definitive study to date on the problem warned that the economic impact on the forest industry up to now was considered to be great if the pollution were allowed to continue. The scientists also say the soil, lakes and rivers of eastern Canada are more susceptible to acid rain damage than those in the United States.

A senior Environment Canada official, commenting on the magnitude of the problem, said the situation is almost irreversible -- not absolutely irreversible, but almost. Dr. Warren Godson, director general of Environment Canada’s atmospheric division, also said the report, in stating for the first time that acid rain damage is also affecting crops and forests, presents a fact now generally accepted by the scientific community.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the previous speaker when we are limited in time in debating these very important issues. I think the effect acid rain is going to have on our crops is a lot more serious than the minister would consider. I fail to understand why research hasn’t been done on the effect acid rain is having on our crops. Believe me, not only has the white bean crop been wiped out of southwestern Ontario, but it’s soon going to be wiped out of all of Ontario if we don’t control the problem. It’s time we looked into it.

I’m sorry I have to quit now because I’m just getting wound up.

[10:00]

Mr. Watson: You don’t believe that, do you, Jack? I’m sure the white beans are more important, Jack. All the white beans were wiped out because of acid rain; is that your statement?

Mr. Riddell: The white beam in southwestern Ontario were wiped out because of the pollution from American industry, and now --

Mr. Watson: From where? From where?

Mr. Riddell: In Essex and Kent counties.

Mr. Watson: No, but where did that pollution -- where did you say it came from? Who pointed the finger there?

Mr. Riddell: And now the crop is going to be wiped out in Huron and Middlesex and Perth if we don’t do something.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have had enough verbal pollution around here now. The member for Downsview.

Mr. Bolan: You’re talking to a hardheaded bunch; they don’t understand these things.

Mr. Riddell: We have to get the message through to them somehow.

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the adverse effects of acid precipitation on the aquatic ecosystem and the terrestrial ecosystem, as well as on the general welfare of the people who are affected.

My friends the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) have told us that the pollution from Inco has already been responsible for the acidification of a number of lakes in the Sudbury region, lakes in which all the fish have died.

The problem is much more widespread, of course. The ministry itself has said that 48,000 lakes may be affected in time. When the fish in a lake die, so does a good bit of the tourist industry. The member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) has spoken about this issue.

Losses to the tourist industry in the Adirondack Mountains area, where 100 lakes have died, has produced a loss of $1 million because of the sport fishing decline.

The problem is particularly acute because the fish species most susceptible to acidification are those most desired as sport fish. With the tourist industry go a lot of jobs in many parts of Ontario. As far as the forests are concerned, local damage to vegetation in the Sudbury area caused by Inco’s smelter has been known about for many years. The high stack has simply spread the problem over a much broader area.

There is a lot as yet unknown about the damage to forests from acid rain and from deposition of sulphates. The report of the United States-Canada research and consultation group talks about a 20 per cent reduction in forest productivity that could result from acid rain. As with many of the other effects of acid rain, by the time we know just how serious the damage is it will be probably too late to do anything about it, Since the forest industry is one of the economic mainstays of northern Ontario, the longer-term danger to jobs and exports is tremendous.

Disturbingly little is known about the effects of acid rain and sulphates on crops, foliage and soil. It seems quite likely, however, that damaging effects will be devastating. Agriculture in Ontario is already under a number of pressures from the reduction in good farm land and from rising costs to farmers from import competition. We are fast losing our self-sufficiency in food and food products. The economic dangers to agriculture from acid rain are therefore of a special importance. The cost of cleaning up the acid rain problem would be substantial but the sources of that pollution can afford them and our friends have already spoken about that quite extensively. The economic consequences of not doing anything and simply talking about acid rain will be far more damaging.

The recently released Canada-US report is just the latest piece of evidence that the problem has tremendous economic consequences. These are powerful arguments, quite apart from the environmental destruction and the loss of recreation potential, for taking urgent and immediate action to clean up sources of pollution within Ontario which is contributing to the acid rain problems.

The problem of acid rain has long been known in northern and southern Europe where the urban environment has been very seriously damaged. The members may know, even though they are confining themselves to economic problems, that in Venice monuments of value have been damaged irreparably. It is causing damage to a heritage which will never be repaired. The economic problem is only one aspect of acid precipitation. I think that if we don’t look at the social and the human aspects of this problem -- if we don’t look at it also in terms of civilization and quality of life -- we will not understand the extent of this problem.

The government members who spoke so apologetically for the industry are operating within the logic of capitalism. This is a logic that gives high priority only to profit -- profits prevail over any other consideration.

The economic point of view is quite important. We have to put the jobs that are lost against the profits the corporations are making by exploiting our resources. They are, therefore, undue profits.

As I said, we have a loss in the tourist industry which is irreparable. For example, the United States tells us it lost $1 million in a small area. I think it is more convenient for this government to spread the losses among many people and more tourist operators than face giants like Inco. But I think it is imperative for us to consider the human and social aspects because the quality of life is something that will not be replaced.

This government, by refusing to face this problem, is depriving the majority of citizens of this province and eastern Canada and future generations, of a natural heritage which makes this province fortunate. There is no justification for the collusion of this government with the interests of industry.

It has been explained quite extensively that industry has made overabundant profits and has chosen to invest its profits in other parts of the world -- in Guatemala, Indonesia and New Caledonia. This government is operating under the assumption that what’s good for General Motors is good for America, and what’s good for Inco is good for Ontario. But I submit that is not true.

I think this government is simply abdicating its moral responsibility to the people of this province. I think this behaviour cannot be condoned by any person in this assembly. The people who are speaking on that side of the House, apologizing for the industry and telling us the responsibility doesn’t fall only on this side of the borders, are simply telling us they are unable to face the real problem. Above all, they are unable to tell those people who are supporting them, and who are giving them bits of money when an election comes that they are taking much more from the people of Ontario now, not only from our generation but from future generations.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I understand there are only four minutes left. Does that conclude the debate when I speak?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Kerrio: Your job is to clean up your act.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I will be very brief. I would concur with the remarks made on this important subject. It is too bad we do not have more time. On the other hand, we have spent many hours in very fruitful debate on this subject in committee. Therefore, I think I can be brief on this occasion without by so doing signalling I don’t have a great concern for the problem of acid rain.

I would like to refer, first of all, to the comments made by the member for Huron-Bruce. He talked about the awareness that now exists in this province about acidic precipitation. I think that is true. There is an awareness today that did not exist a year ago. I would like to think that was because of the actions of my ministry. I will put four of them on record.

First of all, very shortly after I became minister I referred the subject matter to the committee. Interestingly enough, much of the information I hear now condemning the ministry for the lack of action was the information that was forwarded on those basic documents at the very first.

In using those figures about 140 dead lakes or 48,000 in jeopardy, that was all information the Ministry of the Environment put on the record. We are not going to deny that. Why would we? It was our information. I think it is our responsibility to put to the people of this province the seriousness of this particular problem and indeed we have.

Mr. Kerrio: It is just like going to confession.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Having referred it to the committee, we then had what I think was a very useful debate. It was a better debate than you have heard here tonight, Mr. Speaker. I am saddened by the fact that there was so much rhetoric and so little of substance that went on record tonight because this could very well be the record that is well read on this subject.

Mr. di Santo: You should be ashamed, if you call it rhetoric.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Perhaps it will not be those many hours that were spent in committee with a great deal of strong testimony from expert witnesses. I am afraid this debate tonight might be the perception the people of this province have of what this Legislature says about the problems of acidic precipitation. If so, I am sad because it should be the great debate which occurred in our committee. The all-party support and the all-party knowledge that was gained there was of great substance.

Mr. di Santo: Your members dissented.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would think the third thing we did to try to bring awareness of acidic precipitation to the people of Ontario and indeed Canada was at the minister’s conference in Kelowna. I really believe, though I am not sure the opposition will accept this, the turning point was when the problem of precipitation became a nationally known and understood problem. The turning point, not the end point, was at that particular time when all of the ministers -- from all parties, I might say, and from all provinces -- were fully aware of it. I am proud it was the paper from Ontario that served as a turning point in the great understanding that must occur if we are going to do the job here in Ontario.

[10:15]

Perhaps to wind up that comment I would say this. A week or so ago, 800 people joined in the debate in this city on acidic precipitation. I am proud that when the Federation of Ontario Naturalists came to our ministry and said in my board room, “We need a little money to put this thing on the road,” we were the very first jurisdiction to put our hand in the pocket and say, “Here is a cheque. Get going with the job.”

That says to me we want the people of Ontario to understand the seriousness of the problem. Never have I, and in fairness I say never has the Liberal member nor indeed the New Democratic member who has served as critic, underestimated the importance. I think we have said one thing in common: This is a major, serious environmental problem that must be addressed. We said that together.

Some in this debate would like to distract, would not like to have that accord. They do themselves a disservice, because this is an issue far too big to be partisan about. When I offer the hand of friendship on this debate and say all three parties understand the seriousness of it, they want to put that record down. That, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, is sad; it is extremely sad. Future generations will come to understand the significance of this particular problem.

Mr. Speaker: There was an understanding the question would be put at 10:15 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and as the person who probably has the responsibility above all others on this, I am wondering if there is other business of the House which must be concluded before the 10:30 p.m. adjournment.

If I could then have another few minutes, I will try to be more brief. Let me talk about the action I see us taking. I have consistently said I think it is absolutely essential that we have an international agreement. I will always believe that.

Mr. Warner: A point of order, Mr. Speaker: I understood there was an arrangement that we each had 45 minutes allotted to us. That time expired at 10:15, and it was arranged there would be a vote at that point.

Mr. Speaker: That was my understanding. Unless there is unanimous consent to allow the minister to continue for another few minutes, I will put the question. Do we have unanimous consent? No. Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:20 p.m.