The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MONITORING OF MEMBERS’ TELEPHONE CALLS

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise with you what I consider to be a point of personal privilege.

It has come to my attention through newspaper reports and several other sources that there is some system of monitoring the members’ telephones in the legislative offices here. In my own personal research, I was unable to determine the precise nature or the capability of the system that is now in place to monitor those things, but it certainly does raise a question of the relationship of those constituents of mine who want to call me as their member and those sources that I might use as a member of the opposition to find information.

In other words, there may be a record kept of all incoming telephone calls to my office, and there may well be a record kept of all outgoing calls from my office, from which it would be relatively simple for others to determine who is talking to me and with whom I am discussing matters and therefore getting information that might be used in my role as member.

In my personal research into the matter, there seem to be some conflicting opinions about the capability of the system that is now in place and whether it could be used for nefarious purposes or whether it is simply a system put in place to monitor business matters.

Sufficient questions have been raised in my own mind that I am going to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this as a matter of privilege for all the members of this House and to see if you can determine precisely the nature of the monitoring system that is in place and what its potential might be in the future.

Two of the questions that disturb me somewhat in the research we have done on this so far are: The members’ offices and the system that is monitoring the phone calls in the members’ offices are under the control of the Ministry of Government Services, not the Speaker; that disturbs me somewhat. The second matter is that it seems there are not clear answers, at least from my point of view as a member, that my privileges as a member are being respected, that those who wish to talk to their member of the Legislature have some measure of privacy assured them and that those sources members might use to get information are at least not being monitored.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take this matter under consideration to see if you can get some answers which I could not get and to ensure that the privileges of the members of this House are protected at all times.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the members of the House, I have checked this out. The traffic data analysis on intercity network lines -- this is on intercity network lines only -- provides data each and every hour on the number of calls. We do not know the details of the call. We do not listen in. We do not relate the call either to the originating number or to the destination number. The only reason this is there is to determine whether we need another intercity line at a particular time because of traffic.

There has never been a time when the Ministry of Government Services or any of our staff have ever listened in on the member’s calls or anyone else’s calls, nor would we have it that way.

Mr. Warner: It records the phone numbers.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: The machine won’t do that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: As a result of recent innovations on services to members, including the initiation of the Inwats line, we have had our office of administration monitoring that -- as a matter of fact, even facilitating that work -- through the Ministry of Government Services and Bell Canada. I have been assured right through that not only was it not being done but also there was not the technical capacity to do that kind of thing.

However, in view of the fact the member for Oshawa has raised that, I am asking the Minister of Government Services to provide a written explanation of the extent to which it is being done and its technical capacities. I am sure you will find that what the minister has said can be substantiated.

If the minister would give us a written explanation of what is being done at the present time, I am sure that would allay any fears any members might have.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, since the House recessed last June, I have continued to monitor closely the performance of the Ontario and Canadian economies. I have been a participant at the first federal-provincial finance ministers’ meeting in two years and listened to other provincial ministers express their concerns.

Today, in advance of the federal budget anticipated for later this month, I would like to review for all members of this chamber the current economic situation both in Ontario and in Canada generally. I would like to put the performance of the Ontario economy in its proper perspective, and I would like to comment upon the needs that must be addressed by the federal Minister of Finance in his budget if he is to come to grips with the issues in Canada’s national economic performance.

2:10 p.m.

First, let me review our current economic performance. In my April budget message, I anticipated some difficulties that 1980 could hold for the Ontario economy. I stated that our performance would be significantly influenced by international events and by federal policies on oil pricing, the use of petroleum revenues, and interest rates.

Both the overall Canadian economy and the Ontario economy have declined sharply in performance so far this year. The reasons for this are clear.

Most industrialized economies, the United States in particular, are still struggling to absorb the impact of sharp increases in energy prices. The American economy has actually been in a recession for a number of months, a recession made more acute by the adjustment problems of the automotive industry.

As the Ontario economy is extremely sensitive to the health of a major export market, our overall performance has suffered as well.

Like the United States, we have experienced declines in both production and sales in some sectors of our economy, most notably the automotive sector. The slowdown is also reflected in the level of excess productive capacity in some industrial sectors. Consequently, the phenomenal rate of job creation experienced in Ontario in 1978 and 1979 -- 294,000 new jobs were created in that period -- could not be maintained. As a result, the rate of unemployment increased to seven per cent on a seasonally adjusted basis by August.

These recessionary forces have been reinforced in Canada by the very restrictive high-interest rate monetary policy of the Bank of Canada. Additionally, the apparent unwillingness of the Liberal government to act to reduce its enormous budgetary deficit has seriously limited flexibility in fiscal policy at the federal level.

Both national and Ontario economic recovery would be greatly assisted by new investment in energy-related projects such as the Alsands and the Cold Lake proposals. The absence of an energy-pricing and revenue-sharing agreement has postponed these investment decisions to the detriment of our economic performance.

But there is a bright side. In fact, our economic future is far healthier than our present performance appears to suggest.

In comparison to other major trading partners, Ontario continues to perform satisfactorily. Where unemployment in the United States grew almost two whole percentage points over the 12-month period ended in August 1980, Ontario unemployment grew by only half of one per cent. In the first eight months of this year, employment growth in Ontario was double that of the United States.

Many sectors of Ontario’s economy are strong and are showing sustained or increased levels of employment. For example, nonresidential construction, although slipping somewhat in the second quarter, has been strong. Manufacturing of machinery, production of paper and allied products, printing and publishing, food and beverage industries are some of the sectors that continue to exhibit high-capacity utilization.

While a significant part of our unemployment problem is related to temporary layoffs, many of these layoffs have been of short duration. I am pleased to see that in the automotive sector, the employment situation is starting to improve as manufacturers recall workers and resume hiring. I expect to see that sector improve its performance considerably with the new fuel-efficient automobiles having strong public appeal.

Such activities reflect, I feel, a growing sense of optimism. Private sector investment plans clearly indicate that Ontario’s business community shares this optimism. According to Statistics Canada’s mid-year survey of investment intentions, manufacturing investment in Ontario will increase by an anticipated 44 per cent this year. That figure reflects decisions to increase capacity, modernize existing plant and adjust to energy price increases, all of which can only improve our productivity and Ontario’s competitiveness in world markets.

The government of Ontario has taken important steps to improve our economic potential and pave the way for new growth following this recessionary period. The employment development fund is supporting a massive program of modernization in the pulp and paper industry and is assisting the automotive and the parts producers, the microelectronics industry and urban transit.

Small business in Ontario is receiving a significant boost through the small business development corporation program, and we have been able to introduce tax measures to assist small businesses to grow and expand.

As a result, with appropriate federal policies, an early resolution to the energy issue and constant monitoring of our policies and programs, I am confident of much improved economic performance over the medium term. In my mind, continued application of government spending restraint is clearly in order to control inflation and help our economic performance. And, of course, the public sector has a major role to play in this fight. Excessive rates of government spending and demands on capital markets produce inflationary pressures. The once widely accepted view that spending deficits are stimulative no longer holds true.

Effective economic direction requires governments to provide selective stimulus in the economy, without appropriating a larger share of the resources needed by the private sector, to increase employment and productivity. This is true for both the federal and provincial levels of government.

Our policy of fiscal restraint has been sensitive both to the needs of industry and to the needs of people. We have achieved our spending target without cutting programs and have reduced the deficit without raising personal taxes. Simple belt-tightening and more effective setting of priorities have produced a more productive, cost-conscious public sector.

At the same time, we have not jeopardized social service delivery or other essential programs. We have also taken new and positive steps to protect Ontario citizens from inflationary and interest-rate pressures. Our program of tax relief and enriched income support for senior citizens will put $75 million more in pensioners’ hands this year. Our subsidy on interest rates for farmers resolved an acute cash-flow problem for that group.

We have stimulated sectors of our economy and we have met public social needs within the context of general fiscal restraint. I plan to continue this policy of maintaining tight control of Ontario’s budgetary deficit, while at the same time being flexible enough to meet pressing economic and social needs.

I would now like to discuss our economic prospects and the important issues that must be addressed if Ontario’s and Canada’s economic performance is to meet and exceed the levels we have come to expect. I want to say that Canada faces some serious structural problems that must be resolved if we are to achieve our potential and create real national strength. Resolving those problems will take determination and courage as well as co-operation between federal and provincial fiscal policies. They are not so simple that they can be solved by passing a law on full employment in this Legislature, as some members opposite would have us believe.

In my statement to the ministers of finance in Ottawa on September 19, I expressed grave concern over the lack of progress in co-ordinating federal and provincial economic and fiscal strategies. I put forward three priority issues for discussion: the need to curb inflation, the resolution of the energy issue and long-term supply security, and the need for selective economic stimulation to create jobs.

There are at present two major barriers that inhibit our attack on inflation. The first is the growing fiscal imbalance amongst governments in Canada and the effect this is having on our economy. Escalating surpluses in the oil- and gas-producing provinces and burgeoning deficits at the federal level are formidable obstacles to any kind of balanced national growth, and they inhibit any joint attack on inflationary pressures.

The second is the federal deficit itself. The size of the present federal deficit both limits the flexibility of that government to fight inflation and adds directly to inflationary pressure. To achieve lower interest rates, restore national economic confidence and provide directions and programs to improve performance all require that the federal government move immediately to reduce its deficit to a more controllable, more manageable level.

To this end, I proposed to my federal colleague, Finance Minister MacEachen, a program of spending restraints that could, through moderate and nondisruptive reductions, reduce federal cash requirements from the current level of 19 per cent of spending to about 14 per cent in three years.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. S. Smith: Are you also going federal?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Listen, we are at four per cent. Any time a Liberal gets below 20 per cent of his deficit that is pretty good.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is this your direction after the next election, rather than McMaster?

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll be right over there.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The opposition leader is going to be on our payroll one way or another after the next round. Frankly, it is cheaper to have him where he is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He would probably earn less here than he would back where he is going.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Any increases in government revenues, especially from the resource sector, could further reduce the cash requirements to a level more consistent with the levels of other western industrialized nations. I should add that even these levels would still be more than double that of Ontario.

As is the case of our own deficit reduction plans, this proposal would reduce the federal deficit without major personal and corporate tax increases and without reducing the level of federal contributions to social and economic programs.

The resolution of energy-related questions, pricing and revenue sharing is absolutely essential both for our national economic prospects and for the survival of the country.

Higher energy prices are a fact of economic life. In Canada, we have the luxury of determining the level of these price increases and of distributing the revenue from them in a manner consistent with national needs and priorities.

For this to happen, a much improved revenue-sharing agreement must be concluded which would provide the federal government with the economic power to pursue its equalization and economic development responsibilities. Failure to reach agreement along these lines will jeopardize any national recovery program, would substantially affect the soundness of provincial finances and would widen dramatically the regional after-taxes income differentials between oil- and gas-producing provinces and the nonproducing provinces.

A quick agreement on energy pricing will allow immediate commencement of major new energy projects such as Cold Lake and Alsands, with very real benefits to both Canada’s and Ontario’s economy. They will provide jobs all across the country, improve skills training, promote research and development activities, and support new industries, as well as increasing consumer and infrastructure spending.

The third of the priority issues I mentioned was the need for selective stimulation to provide good jobs. Although our job-creation record in Ontario has been good, and will strengthen again as the economy recovers, employment prospects over the next few months need the closest scrutiny from government.

In this regard, initiative at the moment rests with the federal government. I asked the Minister of Finance, and I was supported by some other provinces, to examine the possibility of short-term stimulus to the economy, perhaps for the balance of this fiscal year.

Such action is not inconsistent with the reduction of the federal deficit over the medium term provided it is selective, time-limited and designed to have its impact in 1980-81. To make such a program effective, I indicated to Mr. MacEachen that Ontario would be willing to participate in such action.

There are also a number of areas to which the federal government could channel its spending that would not only create jobs but also have a longer-term impact on our economic performance and social wellbeing. Expanded rapid transit, improvements to rail services, upgrading of forestry resources, and support to research and development activities all create much-needed jobs now and improve tomorrow’s potential.

It is particularly important that federal and provincial governments intensify their efforts to improve skills training programs to meet an increasing demand for skilled workers. This is essential to eliminate production bottlenecks and increase productivity and may require a complete overhaul of federal unemployment support programs as they are now legislated.

Because of the need to address these major problems, I am awaiting the upcoming federal budget with a great deal of expectation and hope.

The decisions taken in that document will have a critical impact on the country as a whole and on the economy of the province. The minimum requirements of the federal budget are as follows:

1. A clear diagnosis of our national economic situation;

2. Details of a systematic program to control government spending and bring that deficit under control;

3. Careful assessment of the various measures to provide short-term stimulus to the economy; I hope this will include discussions with the provinces on immediate action;

4. Recognition that substantial personal and corporate tax increases are not appropriate to this recessionary period and will not contribute to national economic growth;

5. Movement towards the resolution of energy pricing and revenue sharing that will allow those large projects to go ahead; and

6. A fiscal plan to reduce foreign oil dependency and improve Canada’s competitiveness in both industrial and commercial sectors.

Finally, the government of Canada must also recognize the increasing duality of Canada’s economy. By that I mean the booming resource-based economic performance in some regions coexisting with recession in other parts of the country.

Traditional monetary policy, such as the restrictive high interest rate policy pursued by the Bank of Canada, no longer works to resolve difficult economic problems. The high interest rates of the first half of this year neither reduced unemployment nor contributed to the fight against inflation. In fact, they were significant pressures towards higher inflation. As well, although traditionally applied monetary policy may have its intended effect in one part of the economy, it often acts in an entirely contrary way in another.

Mr. MacEachen’s budget therefore must also reflect very careful consideration of the likely impact of monetary policy on all sectors of the economy, rather than the theoretical purpose. I would hope that a check on the trend towards higher interest rates would form part of his thinking.

In concluding, I would like to emphasize that I am very optimistic about Canada’s and Ontario’s medium- and long-term prospects. External factors combined with a resurgence of domestic demand will place us on the path to improved economic performance.

I fully expect a new wave of consumer buying of the new fuel-efficient automobiles with a resultant decline in the import share of Canada’s car sales market. Residential construction should also recover as the industry responds and adjusts to demographic changes and new patterns in housing demand.

The concerted efforts of all levels of government are essential to produce the level of economic performance that we should expect from this country. Initiative now rests with the federal government through Mr. MacEachen’s first budget. I will be studying the effects of that budget on the people and on the economy of Ontario to determine if further initiatives are required.

BRAMPTON PICKET LINE INCIDENT

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. Surely there will be a statement by the government in response to the question yesterday concerning the unfortunate Maple Lodge picket line situation and the misuse of women strikers by the police.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the Attorney General has the answer to a question asked yesterday, and perhaps at the appropriate time he will be given an opportunity to do that.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO EMISSIONS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Does the Minister of Energy recall the report that came out last June, although it was dated a year earlier, which was the fourth annual report on Michigan-Ontario air pollution, in which the International Joint Commission singled out Ontario Hydro’s Lambton plant in Sarnia as the only sulphur dioxide emitter from that boundary area that is not meeting the joint commission’s objectives?

Does the minister know that these commission findings were based on 1978 data and that I have before me more recent data from 1979, which show that since this report Lambton increased its sulphur dioxide emissions by some 30,000 tons per year?

Does the minister remember this report? What is he now doing about it? What can we expect the level of sulphur dioxide emission to be in the 1980s?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, quite simply, the answer to the first question is yes. In answer to the second, as I think we perhaps shared with the Leader of the Opposition the last time this matter was raised, Ontario Hydro has been giving this matter some priority attention, and I am expecting to have some report from it as the result of those figures before too long.

Mr. S. Smith: Keep in mind that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) on this same matter of Hydro’s cleanup said, and I quote -- this is from a July issue of the Globe and Mail -- “But I don’t want to put any deadline on myself with Hydro. Any human being can only do so many things. It is a weakness not of me, but of our society, that so much authority is vested in a minister.”

2:30 p.m.

Since clearly too much authority has already been vested in that minister, can we rely on the Minister of Energy to do something more? Can we rely on him to lend a hand and do something more with Hydro other than simply await certain reports that might or might not be forthcoming? Will he set a deadline for Hydro? Will he set a limit on Hydro?

Does he realize the three largest generating plants together have almost as much sulphur dioxide pollution as the famous Inco plant we have been talking about for so long?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could be allowed to observe that I and the people of Ontario have all kinds of confidence in the Minister of the Environment.

Applause.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I haven’t even got to my own ministry yet.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: If I might expand on that briefly, I know something of the commitment of my colleague to this whole question of the quality of the environment. No one in this House can point to any specific area of great concern where the Minister of the Environment and the members of his staff are not attempting as best they can to explain and to indicate what they are doing about it.

By the same token, may I assure the Leader of the Opposition and members of this House that in the Hydro organization there are men and women who share that commitment. No one can really be accused of lacking concern with respect to the environment. To impose artificial deadlines in the solution of matters that require a fair amount of technological consideration is being somewhat unreasonable.

Let me assure this House and let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that he does not stand alone in the province with his concern about matters of the environment.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, may I redirect a supplementary on that matter to the Minister of the Environment and ask him, given that his ministry has known ever since it was created that Lambton, Nanticoke, Lakeview and other Ontario Hydro plants would be among the largest emitters of sulphur dioxide in this province, why is he waiting until next year to get himself personally involved in drafting the control order, rather than asking his staff to do that work now and to get the draft control order out into the public for discussion and implementation?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The member had better read that a little more carefully. He will find there is no reference to next year -- that’s more poetic licence.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Let me reiterate something I put on the record a little while ago that happens to be fact. I think it is a rather interesting observation. I do not say this in defence of Ontario Hydro, because indeed it is going to have an order, but let me also make it very clear that all the emissions of Ontario Hydro do not equal by any stretch of the imagination two or three independent sources of hydro generation in the United States. There are all kinds of them, where just one source exceeds all Ontario Hydro. That is not something the opposition wants to hear very often. It happens to be true and it is about time we understood it must be a joint action. I have not seen much on the other side of the street.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The International Joint Commission made the very point the minister has just made, but it also indicated this was really no excuse for allowing pollution at the local level and made the further observation that Hydro should clean up. Would the minister not agree and would he make that one of his highest priorities?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: There is no doubt about that; we are. We are, as the Minister of Energy said, in the stage now of having completed a great deal of dialogue with Hydro, and that is our highest priority in the battle of acid rain. There is no problem there at all. We totally agree.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Given the increasing evidence of the harm being done by bed cutbacks in the general hospital system and given the fact that to attain the minister’s stated objective of three and 3.5 beds per thousand would require the closing of somewhere between 4,500 and 5,000 additional beds, has the minister abandoned or is he prepared to abandon his stated policy target?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that it was never the policy target to go to three and 3.5. The member is mistaken in his assumption. We have in the last few years seen a net addition of beds in the province when we look at the total health care system. I do not anticipate in 1981 seeing any marked reduction in acute care beds anywhere in the province. In fact, in 1981 there will be an addition of acute care beds in a number of communities, and addition of chronic care beds in many communities and a further 600 nursing home beds, as announced in the throne speech.

Mr. S. Smith: Since the minister now no longer wishes to abide by the suggestions and guidelines of three and 3.5 beds which came from his ministry, would he accept 3.5 and four, which are the targets he is aiming at for the moment? Does that constitute the ministry’s target and, if so, could he tell us on what that particular target has been based?

Does he recognize that further bed cutbacks of any kind are simply not indicated and that what is required is a vast expansion of chronic beds before people can even live with the present number of general hospital beds without the long waiting lists he has created?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I wish I could say there would be a point arrived at some time in the future where there would never be any waiting list. I think the member knows that that is simply not ever going to arrive. It has never been achieved in any jurisdiction and it will never be achieved here.

However, let me correct again his statement that our goal is three beds per 1,000 in the south and 3.5 in the north. That is wrong. The goal, as stated almost three years ago, is 3.5 in the south and four in the north, which we have virtually attained.

Second, I would remind the member that at the time the policy was announced it was indicated that these were the goals for acute care beds; that at that time the previously existing maximum levels for chronic and extended care beds had been removed, and that, based on local assessments of need, beds will be added.

I would remind him that in a great many communities, nursing home beds and chronic care beds have been added in the last 18 months. Most recently, in Richmond Hill, 31 beds were added to York Central Hospital yesterday, thanks to the efforts of the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson) and the next member for York Centre.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In addition, I would point out to the member that the whole purpose of stating three years ahead of time our goals was to effect a shift in the system from an overreliance on acute to an expansion --

Mr. S. Smith: Shift? It is going to be a strangulation.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I wasn’t the one who demanded that $50 million be cut from the Ministry of Health budget two years ago. It was the Leader of the Opposition. It is on the record. Fifty-million-dollar-slasher Smith -- that’s who he is.

Mr. S. Smith: What nonsense. Do you really believe it?

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister undertake to put himself out of the corridors of the Ministry of Health and into the corridors of the hospitals of Metropolitan Toronto and other communities across Ontario where emergency patients are being forced to wait because of the shortage of beds? Will the minister not then undertake to ensure that the provision of hospital services be related to need and not to theoretical budgets that are worked out within the Ministry of Health, which are creating extreme hardship and hurting people across the province right now?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, that is the whole point relating to need. I would point out to the member that in his own area the health council in Ottawa-Carleton has indicated that it could go to three beds per thousand or less with certain programs.

2:40 p.m.

The member mentioned Metropolitan Toronto. Comparing this year over last, just going from the spring of 1979 to the spring of this year, there were more than 500 more beds in service in Metropolitan Toronto in the spring of 1980 than there were in the spring of 1979. There were more than 200 more beds opened in Metropolitan Toronto in the summer of 1980 than in the summer of 1979.

We have approved more than 200 beds to be added to Scarborough Centenary Hospital. We have approved a 300-bed hospital at Scarborough l’Amoreaux site for the Salvation Army. We have approved 65 beds that have gone into service at the Etobicoke General. I am awaiting in the next few weeks a report of the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto, based on which we will be adding a significant number of nursing home beds and further chronic beds in Metro. These are over and above the ones we have added in the last 18 months at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, at the West Park Hospital and at the Grace.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the minister indicated in this policy area that as of September his area teams were meeting with the hospitals of this province who were reporting uncontrollable problems that had developed. He indicated they were authorized to rectify them or seek a rectification in these budgets.

Recognizing that a majority of hospitals are likely to have deficits this year, collectively in the order of $60 million, what mandate do these area teams have? What is the basis for the rectification arrangement the minister has struck with these very seriously concerned public hospitals, who are reporting deep financial problems?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to finish what I started yesterday, and I thank the honourable member for arranging for that.

First of all, let’s put this in some kind of perspective. The overall spending increase for public hospitals this year in Ontario was greater than 10 per cent. That included increases on the base budgets, plus increases for new programs that have been approved and the annualized financial effect of programs that have begun in 1979.

Second, the increases provided for in the January 22 statement were based on the best data available late in 1979 of projected increases in salaries and wages and goods and services. So the intention was that the budgetary increases for 1980 would match inflation.

The total operating costs of the hospitals of Ontario are approximately $2.3 billion. I mention that because the projected deficits as matched to the total spending are a very small percentage -- not that it is insignificant, but it is a small percentage compared with more than $2.25 billion.

Let me give the House an example. Perhaps an orthopaedic surgeon has moved into a small community where they did not have one before, and that has happened since the budget was set down. As a result, the demand on beds and the demand on services, machinery and everything else is something they had not had to accommodate before. That has led to deficits.

Yesterday morning I was with representatives of various emergency departments around the province and uniformly they report a very significant increase in patient load in emergency departments and ambulatory-care areas of hospitals. That sort of thing has to be accommodated because they cannot stop the people coming, and we have to make sure they have the money to deal with it.

In other areas, it is due to population growth, but the adjustments will be made to ensure the programs carry on.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he could now confirm information, which we have received, that the hospital council in Metropolitan Toronto has now determined that the system is so badly jammed up there are almost twice as many chronic care patients in active treatment beds than there were when he began this process. Can he confirm that in fact it has gone from 10 per cent to 18 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, at the time the process began I am on the record as saying that our estimate was 15 to 20 per cent. I believe the study essentially confirms that. The study was based on a snapshot view of the Metro hospital system on May 7, 1980. Since then a number of new beds have come into service such as the expanded West Park Hospital in York South riding.

Last spring I suggested to the hospital council that they seek approval for several hundred more nursing home beds in Metro. They asked me to wait until the study was completed. I know the study will indicate the need for hundreds more nursing home and chronic care beds and we are prepared to respond to that as soon as the report is in and we can work it out with the hospital council.

ASSISTANCE TO PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question for the Premier. Yesterday we had evidence from an independent agency that his government had misspent $95 million in assistance to the pulp and paper industry. That same report said there were not enough trees to feed the industry now, let alone to feed the industry when it expands. Since the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) has admitted the current reforestation program of the government is falling 50 per cent short of its targets, could the Premier tell us when we can expect to have tabled in this Legislature a new program for planting trees to protect jobs in northern Ontario?

Mr. MacDonald: Remember the Bramalea charter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, not only do I remember it, we do it.

Mr. MacDonald: Is the Bramalea charter just more Brampton bilge?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would have thought the very distinguished member for York South would know better than to make observations of that nature.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Sludge.

Hon. Mr. Davis: York South sludge, is that what you would call it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, they are interrupting me, Mr. Speaker. Knowing the Speaker’s great interest in this whole subject, I certainly will get to the point of the question immediately. What was the question?

I have the report here. The member very kindly sent it to me. It says, “The Economic Future of the Forest Products Industry in Northern Ontario; prepared for” -- but I understand not accepted by -- “the Ontario Royal Commission on the Northern Environment by Lakehead University; principal authors, F. J. Anderson, N. C. Bonsor, department of economics, with the assistance of Mr. Benson, the school of forestry, Mr. Gallupe, the school of business administration.”

There are certain credits given in the preamble to the report. The report has not been accepted by the commission. I think it is fair to state that a number of academics, and I am not being critical at all of the academics, have made a report based on certain statistical information that they have prepared, which expresses a point of view and their judgement.

I would point out to the honourable member that before he comes in here with reports suggesting that they, in fact, are the emanations of the royal commission per se, he should perhaps do his homework a little further. If I am incorrect in my observations, if in fact the royal commission has accepted this and has endorsed it, I stand corrected, but my understanding is that this is a working paper for the royal commission. It is the point of view of the four or five people from Lakehead University who may or may not have some specific knowledge in this area. I have no idea.

I can get academics or anybody to write a report on anything. You can get conflicting reports on any point of view. I have news for the honourable member. I know of some of the researchers in his office who came up with conflicting points of view in some of his own research. Some of the research done over there on energy policy boggles the mind. It may not boggle the member’s mind because one has not made that assessment.

May I also point out to the honourable member that if he takes individual examples, I would say with respect to the authors of the report and with respect to the leader of the New Democratic Party, there is a possibility that if Iroquois Falls had not received the kind of assistance coming from this government, it might not be operative today. I would say with respect, if we had not assisted Dryden, there is perhaps a possibility that would not exist today. That is something the academics did not cover.

I would even go back again, as I did yesterday, to Welland-Thorold. Their report may not even cover Ontario Paper, but I think it is clear that the government policy was of great assistance to Ontario Paper. It has secured employment for the people of that area and I would even say the local member has acknowledged in his incautious moments, if not in public print certainly to some people there, what a great program it is.

2:50 p.m.

One can go into any community in northern Ontario that is dependent on the pulp and paper industry as a means of livelihood and not find one person, a member of the union, management, town council or whoever, who is not supportive of what we have been doing for the pulp and paper industry, in spite of this report that has not yet been accepted by the royal commission.

Mr. Cassidy: Since those mills in northern Ontario will not run at all if there were not trees to sustain the jobs, and since the Ministry of Natural Resources categorically was saying as recently as last month that the reforestation in northern Ontario falls far short of what is needed to sustain the jobs in northern Ontario, can the Premier say whether the employment development fund people talked to the Ministry of Natural Resources before they gave that money to the pulp and paper industry? Can the Premier promise when the government will bring forward a plan that will ensure that the trees will be there to sustain the jobs in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to sense that the leader of the New Democratic Party has moved away from his criticism of the policy of assisting the pulp and paper industry to one of concern about the number of trees. I would say to the honourable member that when agreements are concluded with those who are the recipients of this modest degree of government financing, the question of supply is taken into account.

I would say to the honourable member, if he wishes to direct further questions to the Minister of Natural Resources related to the adequacy of supply of a product that is essential for the functioning of the mills in terms of the employment that is generated, the Minister of Natural Resources will give him a detailed explanation that will take up the rest of the question period and which will be totally relevant.

Mr. Cassidy: I have a supplementary for the Premier on this. Since the Premier keeps telling us --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Welland-Thorold wants to make a point.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point of personal privilege. The minister indicated I had supported the policy of subsidies to the paper mills in this province, particularly to the Ontario Paper Company. I want to state categorically that I have opposed the principle of these kinds of subsidies to the paper mills generally in this province, along with the Canadian Paperworkers Union, but have said that even with this wrong policy, the Ontario Paper Company was as much entitled as the big ones such as Abitibi to which the government had already given money.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want the official records of this House to show that the member for Welland-Thorold has really enunciated one of the most waffling kinds of statements I have heard in the history of this House. I would like him to get up and say that he is prepared to face his constituents saying that Ontario Paper should have received no assistance from the government of this province. If that is what he really means, he should get up and say so. I challenge him right now, right here.

Mr. Cassidy: A final supplementary: Could the Premier tell the House why it is that when there is a possibility, in his terms, that the companies may need the money, the money is advanced without any requirements to justify it, without any assurance that we here in the Legislature know as to whether that expenditure of $95 million of public funds was justified or not, yet when we have this categorical evidence that we are falling far short of replacing the forest we need to maintain the jobs in northern Ontario, there is no such expenditure from the government to maintain the jobs in northern Ontario? Why this double standard when trees are being cut and not replaced to create jobs in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, really, I am trying to be as helpful to the leader of the New Democratic Party as I can, and I suggest the Minister of Natural Resources would be delighted to give him some information. My information from the minister, in that I am closer to him than is the honourable member, is an expenditure of $4.5 million this year, $20 million next year and $20 million the year after.

LAYOFFS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Since the Minister of Labour says the mass-layoff problem shows signs of a turnaround, what advice would the minister give to the 185 employees of Caravelle Carpets Limited, in Cornwall, who were told on the weekend that their plant is closing with no indication that the company will provide severance pay and with no protection for pensions for workers with less than 10 years’ service?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the closure in Cornwall is a matter that I have already asked my staff to look into and it is doing that.

[Breakdown in sound system.]

Mr. Speaker: Hansard is just as concerned about the sound system as we are. It is doing everything technically feasible to correct it. I would just admonish members that if they would keep their voices down and limit their interjections it would be a lot easier for us to communicate under these difficulties.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: As I have said, I have already asked for a review of the situation in Cornwall and will be glad to let the member know the result.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Does not the fact that the Minister of Labour’s people are moving in only six weeks before the plant is due to close and the fact that the decision has been irrevocably made by the corporation show how inadequate our laws are to protect workers who are affected by layoffs, particularly when there are 42,000 people unemployed in eastern Ontario right now and when there have been 600 workers laid off already this year just in the city of Cornwall, where these layoffs occurred?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Speaking personally, I think the member knows very well the great interest and activity I and my ministry have taken with regard to the issue of individual plant layoffs. I will continue to show that interest. I indicated yesterday that I would be making a statement on the broad matter of plant closures and I would ask the member to wait until I have that statement later in the week.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the Minister of Labour assure the 185 people who will be thrown out of work that any legislation that may be introduced later this week will be retroactive and will apply to them?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Later on in the week I will be commenting in a statement on the matters related to plant closures.

INVESTMENT COMPANIES’ FAILURE

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to Astra Trust and Re-Mor Investment Management Corporation. Can the minister explain why several hundred pensioners and others who have lost their life savings are being forced to sue this government to obtain some restitution? Will the minister accept some responsibility in this matter to get the federal government and the trust companies, along with his ministry, to share in some program so that these various persons who have been clearly defrauded, in my view, can expect restitution in a practical way, particularly the pensioners and the others who have lost their life savings in some cases?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I had nothing to do with two separate lawsuits. One involved two people in Hamilton who decided to go on their own, and later there was a consolidation. However, I agree with the member on his general approach. It is the position of this government -- I should say the position of this minister --

Mr. Peterson: Not the same thing.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I don’t think it is very funny. Cool yourself down. You are the ones who write me these bleeding heart letters and then you open your mouth in here.

The course of events basically began with the decision by the Ontario government not to charter the principals of Astra Trust as a trust company. Notwithstanding that, the federal government chose to do so.

Over the five or six years it is a matter of record -- I am sure the honourable member knows this as he is a director of a trust company in the federal sector, and this is well known out in the trust field, but I want to put it on the record -- there were several warnings to the federal government concerning the activities of the principals of Astra Trust. The associated companies that were involved with Astra Trust would never have sold the amounts of debentures, or of investment certificates, without the front of Astra Trust.

Mr. Hall: Or without a charter.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Many of them were sold and C&M’s were sold long before.

First, it is our position, and we want to deal with the federal government on this -- I have to choose my words carefully because there is additional litigation by the trustees involving certain assets that it is claimed left Re-Mor and were put into Astra to keep it going -- that the proper manner in which this situation can be wound up is for the federal government to acknowledge that the bulk of the moneys that left Re-Mor were used to prop up Astra Trust because the federal investigators were in. The return of those funds would enable the payoff on the Re-Mor investment and, of course, the people who had deposits in Astra Trust were covered by normal government insurance.

The real problem for the federal government, and I sympathize with them, is the chartered banks are unalterably opposed to that procedure because they, too, contribute to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. That is the route that this government feels should be taken. I alluded to it somewhat sketchily before in my estimates. That has been our particular constant thrust.

Second, and more important, there has to be a determination as to who has jurisdiction over trust companies in this country, because I say to the honourable member the federal government is in another pickle. There was an insurance company we would not touch, and warned them not to. That insurance company obtained a federal charter and is now in a very precarious financial situation with amounts of money unfortunately owed in Quebec.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: It was this company and this ministry that were involved with respect to the licensing of Re-Mor Investments. As my press statement on July 31 showed, it was 13 days after the Supreme Court of Ontario ordered C&M Financial Consultants into receivership. Since that clearly is part of this whole pickle, as the minister might put it, what responsibility is the provincial government going to assume in this matter, not only with respect to co-ordinating some arrangement, perhaps through other trust companies and through the federal government, but in trying to protect the people who have lost funds in these circumstances -- partly because of the whole involvement not only of the federal government but of this government too?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I outlined the route the government felt would produce the fairest and most effective settlement for all concerned. I think that is the route we want to follow. If you are asking me to comment upon the particular court case because that court case says the registrar in a particular application was negligent, I do not want to try it here. We will win it, but I do not want to try it here.

Mr. M. N. Davison: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, regarding the government’s culpability in the Re-Mor $6 million swindle. I want to lay it out fairly clearly for the minister.

The Ontario Securities Commission had decided to shut down Mr. Carlo Montemurro’s previous company, C&M Financial Consultants, back in November 1978, which eventually led to the decision of the Supreme Court of Ontario and to the $3.8 million conspiracy to defraud the public. A different component of the ministry registered the second Carlo Montemurro corporation, namely Re-Mor Investment Management Corporation, in late February 1979, after both of these decisions which were public, in contravention of section 5 of the Mortgage Brokers Act, thereby committing what can only be described as an act of gross negligence on the part of the ministry and which led to the swindle being made possible, if not inevitable.

The Montemurro victims gave 16 days’ notice of intention to sue the ministry back in September of this year for that negligence under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act. In view of all the foregoing, will the minister now admit publicly, as he should, his liability and his ministry’s liability to make sure that some remedy is provided to those victims of the ripoff?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

Mr. S. Smith: Given that we all appreciate the minister’s efforts to protect us from Academy Award-winning films and beer in the ball park, here we have hundreds of pensioners who have actually lost their life savings because an official in his ministry licensed this company not 13 days after the same individual, in reprehensible and disreputable circumstances, was put into receivership. How can the minister possibly sit back and say it is someone else’s responsibility to help these pensioners? It is surely the responsibility of the government to be of assistance in these cases and what is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t say it was anybody else’s responsibility and I don’t understand some of those remarks. But I have told the Leader of the Opposition once before -- and I really say this out of friendship because he is not a bad guy -- not to be a mouthpiece for a mouthpiece. The Leader of the Opposition got into difficulty with that once. If this government was negligent, as the Leader of the Opposition says and we dispute it very much, I don’t consider this case one way or the other -- we are going to win -- to have any impact upon the final settlement.

Mr. S. Smith: But they are people. Who cares if you win your case? It is the people who count.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have been working for some time for those people. We have embarked upon a route that will provide -- if there is agreement --

Mr. S. Smith: Then why did they decide to sue you?

Hon. Mr. Drea: The Leader of the Opposition is asking me why they decided to sue me. We are not accepting liability. We are prepared to defend the registrar’s decision in the court that it was not negligent. That is as simple an answer as I can give the member.

The real work that has to be done is in sifting away what moneys went into Astra in the dying days of Astra Trust. If they came from Re-Mor, and there was some litigation on that, then those funds should be returned to Re-Mor and there is no difficulty with Re-Mor. Nor do the people who invested with Astra Trust stand to lose because they are in an assured position.

That is the route we are going to go. I am very hopeful it can be accommodated in the short term. If it is not, then we will have to choose another route.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health concerning emergency ambulance response times. Is the minister aware of the death this summer of Mrs. Marion Dulmage of Picton, who suffered cardiac arrest and the response time in that instance was more than 30 minutes?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I’m sorry, I can’t really hear the member. The sound system really is bad.

Mr. Breaugh: Is the minister aware of the death this summer of Mrs. Marion Dulmage of Picton, Ontario, who suffered cardiac arrest and the response time in that instance was more than 30 minutes?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, Mr. Speaker, I’m not.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that yesterday the director of ambulance services at the Ajax-Pickering General Hospital, Mr. Russ Abram, said, “If it is cardiac arrest, it is too late”; that once again we are putting money ahead of lives because the response time in that area is 18 minutes? Is he anticipating the ministry will take similar disciplinary action, as he did against Mr. Hank Meyer who blew the whistle on the Halton-Mississauga response time?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let me respond to the latter part of that first. I am pleased to do so and inform the member, which he should know, that first of all the ministry had no part whatsoever in the suspension which was registered against that individual by his employer. It is not a ministry service from which he was suspended.

Mr. Breaugh: The minister was there. He was there.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the member would like to make that statement outside, he can go ahead, but it is not true. He has been misinformed, I am sorry. We had no part in it whatsoever. What is more, I am informed by my officials that there is no reference whatsoever to the ministry. In fact, there is some further action coming on that between Mr. Meyer and the ambulance service, to which we are not related.

As for the other case, I forget the figures offhand, but there are literally tens of thousands of ambulance calls per year in this province. If the member is going to try and zero in on one call and say that means the whole system is falling apart, then I am sorry, I think that is irresponsible. If there is a particular case he wants me to look at, I will be more than happy to do so. I will be more than happy to look at that, but don’t cast a slur and take a slap at the whole service on the basis of one case. I will take a look at it and see if there is a problem.

BRAMPTON PICKET LINE INCIDENT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party asked me yesterday about incidents on the picket line at the Maple Lodge Farms Limited plant in Brampton. I have today a preliminary report from the Peel Regional Police, and I would stress that this is but a preliminary report.

First, regarding the four women pickets sent to hospital, my information is that the four fell or were pushed to the ground during the melee or disturbance. One of the four was treated and released. The others declined treatment.

Second, there were 23 uniformed officers at the scene because in the view of the police the previous experience during the strike indicated that was the number necessary to allow entrance and egress to the property and to protect citizens involved on both sides of the dispute.

Third, the plainclothes officers were there because of serious allegations of damage to property and because uniformed officers were occasionally punched from behind as they linked arms with their backs to the pickets. They were there only in an investigative role.

I have been promised a more complete report from the Peel Regional Police later in the week as they continue with their investigation of the allegations.

I should also say that those attempting to enter the plant at the time of this disturbance were federal government meat inspectors who were not directly involved on either side of the dispute. I am also advised that the police have videotapes of the incidents and these are being reviewed. I am further advised that criminal charges have been laid and I do not wish, therefore, to get into a prolonged discussion of the matter at least until I have a more complete report.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the Attorney General also aware that there was a hearing for an injunction brought by the company this morning and that there was an excess number of photographers there on the scene as well taking pictures when the shoving and pushing of the women took place on that line? Can he tell me how many of the officers were injured? Can he tell me why officers were there out of uniform and certainly in nondescript clothing? Will he get an impartial reply, and not a Peel Regional Police reply, to what is going on there because there is something sadly lacking in the integrity of that situation?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Unlike the member opposite, I am not going to engage in the business of prejudging any situation before there is credible information on both sides of the issue. I have already indicated in response to the last part of the supplementary question that the police officers who were in plain clothes were there in an investigative role and that is why they were in plain clothes. I don’t have any additional information other than what I have related to the House. When I have additional information I will so advise the House.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister has stated that is only an interim answer. He has nothing further to add and will be bringing the House up to date when he has further information.

NORFOLK TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Education if she can report to the House on the status of the strike by the secondary school teachers in Norfolk county which today has again closed all of the high schools in the area?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there is still a full withdrawal of service in the Norfolk county area. It is also my understanding that the mediator is ready to return to function on behalf of both sides, to try to reach an agreement. At this point he has received a formal request from the Norfolk County Board of Education but, to my knowledge, has received no such request from the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation.

Mr. Nixon: Does the minister recall that about this time last year a similar strike began in Brant county which was not ended until two or three months later? Would she not say it is her responsibility to use her good offices and her judgement -- I want to watch my adjectives in this connection -- so that we are not going to be subjected to a similar lengthy and acrimonious strike in Norfolk county as we experienced in the nearby county just a year ago?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: As I am sure the honourable member is aware, the Education Relations Commission is functioning diligently and vigorously on behalf of the situation at this time. Certainly the minister will be watching the situation with grave concern, because I really hope there will be no repetition of the kinds of disruption of educational programs which we saw in the last school year.

TRANSITIONAL YEAR PROGRAM

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education, too. The minister knows, doesn’t she, that for the past 12 years Brock University has been operating a very successful program whereby bright grade 12 students, after a five-week preadmission summer course, are admitted to first-year university studies. This government has never funded the expense of that summer course, but why is the minister trying to kill the program altogether for next year by cutting off the BIU university grants of $2,400 for the first year of university for each of the preadmission course students?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, a decision was made more than one year ago that there would be only one program -- at least, that there would be criteria developed to ensure that transitional year programs were appropriately assessed to establish their basis for funding. We examined all of the programs in the province, and there was only one university program that met the criteria and had addressed the specific cultural and educational needs, but particularly cultural needs, of groups of students in an area, and that transitional year program is being funded. None of the rest will be funded, and all of the universities have been made very clearly aware of this for some time.

Mr. Swart: Is the minister against innovation in the field of post-secondary education? Does she not realize that the students are unanimous in their support of this program, that there are less dropouts during university years from this program and that the average marks are higher than they are for the other students in the university? By what distorted logic is the minister killing that kind of program and taking a year out of many students’ work lives?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The honourable member may be spouting certain kinds of statistics for one institution only, but those suggested facts do not apply across the province.

We have a program for university admission in this province. We recognize that there are certain areas in which students who have not taken advantage of that educational program make a decision to go back to school, and there are provisions for them within the public educational system to achieve their grade 13 standing and then to be admitted to university. We support those students vigorously.

3:20 p.m.

We do not believe that high school programs should be delivered at the universities of this province. We believe that in certain specific instances where there are cultural needs specific to certain groups within our society, that may be a rational position and a rational approach to meeting the educational needs of students. We did assess all those programs on the basis of those criteria and made the final decision, which is entirely rational.

I have no doubt that all the students at Brock are in support of this, no doubt whatever, but I would also suggest that all the students at Brock might be strongly in support of suggesting that those transitional year students could achieve their grade 13 status through the public educational system and then attend Brock as normal admittances.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister not recognize that the pressure will now be placed upon the university to continue that particular program and to use funding that is derived from other areas to finance that program and therefore that other programs or facilities at the university might be adversely affected? They may bow to that legitimate pressure because she put forward a program that was popular and reasonable and now she has pulled the rug out from under the program.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The rug certainly has not been pulled out from under it. As a matter of fact, two years ago the universities were warned that we had to look at this carefully; they were also made aware of the criteria we would be using in assessing the programs in existence. The universities have been very well aware of this for some time, and I believe in most instances they support the kind of decision that was made.

MASSEY-FERGUSON PENSIONS

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) asked if the ministry was looking at the matter of the Massey-Ferguson pensions and the bequest -- I suppose that is the best word -- of the Argus Corporation shares.

That matter has been under investigation since it became public last Thursday. Indeed, there are meetings going on today. In formal proceedings later this week, the Pension Commission of Ontario will be analysing exactly what happened, and we will reply to the House as the information is made available.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary on that, if I may, Mr. Speaker: As I recall in the press, Mr. Wells Bentley said that he may bend the rules somewhat, that he would not scrutinize this too carefully. As I recall, that is what he said in the press; if I am wrong, I am sure the minister will correct me. Could the minister tell me what Mr. Bentley’s predisposition is on this matter? It appears he is going in with a particular point of view.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I do not know what was in the press. I have discussed the matter with Mr. Bentley, and he views it in exactly the same way as does the minister. The gut and the core question is, what is the value of those shares? Of course, if the company continues to operate and so on, they have a value; if the company does not, they have a breakup value. The real question is, what will that do for the pension arrangements of the employees of that firm in the long term, with the company continuing, or in the short term?

There have been bequests like this before, though not of this size. The only one that is comparable to this occurred in Quebec, and it had nothing to do with the termination. It had to do with the death of the owner of a very large firm who, in his will, bequeathed the bulk of his estate into the employee pension fund. So there really is not a comparable precedent.

I should say the other part of the question involved a tax consideration. Obviously that is within the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Revenue. I have taken the liberty of sending him the Instant Hansard and asking him to reply to the honourable member directly.

To put the matter in order, there are discussions under way looking at what exactly constitutes this bequest to the pension fund, and then the pension commission is going to look very actuarially and very analytically at what the real value is; in other words, what will the employee get out of it, no matter what the course is?

Mr. Renwick: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister, without going through all of this ritual of the pension commission, would simply get from Crown Trust Corporation or from Argus Corporation, or both of them, the document under which the transfer of the shares was made and table it in the House so that we can have a look at it.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I understand that is the function of today’s meeting. I will be glad to table all the information, including the pension commission’s analysis when the pension commission meets later this week. The meeting today is with Mr. Bentley and the parties.

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY DISPUTE

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Could the minister bring this Legislature up to date on the children’s aid society strike in Belleville, a strike that has been going on for more than two months and a strike in which there is considerable conflict between the board and the union?

Mr. McClellan: Come clean.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I always come clean. First of all, I think the member is slightly incorrect in that it is just under two months. It is not a significant error, but I just want to correct the record on when that stoppage of service in Hastings county began.

Mr. O’Neil: I can’t hear you.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am sorry, I cannot correct the system, unfortunately. I have tried for the last four years.

As I think the member knows, throughout the period of the strike we have been monitoring the situation with respect to the service for children in that county very carefully. In fact, a staff representative of the ministry has been on site daily to monitor it to make sure the essential service is being maintained and the society is fulfilling its mandate under the child welfare legislation of this province. I am satisfied to date that has been taking place.

I would add at this point that I have been very encouraged, actually just since coming into the House today, to learn that, as of meetings this morning, some very significant and encouraging movement has taken place in terms of the negotiations. I do not yet know the details but, on the basis of the information I have received, I am optimistic that might lead to an early resolution of some of the outstanding differences between the employees and the board.

I think out of respect for the integrity of the collective bargaining process it would probably not be well for me to say much more than that at this point on that specific aspect of the question. I certainly would not wish to jeopardize any possibility of an early resolution which, I understand, is a real likelihood.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AMUSEMENT RIDE SAFETY ACT

Mr. Eaton moved first reading of Bill 159, An Act respecting the Licensing and Inspection of Amusement Rides in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the licensing and inspection of amusement rides in Ontario. The bill requires that all amusement rides be licensed. A director, appointed under the act, is given the authority to revoke the licence for an amusement ride that does not comply with the act. The act provides for inspectors and specifies that the inspectors must apply the midway safety code when conducting their inspections. It is an offence under the act to operate an amusement ride that is not licensed or that is unsafe, or to cause or permit an amusement ride to be operated in an unsafe manner.

It is hoped that this act will get at some of the situations we have seen at many of our fall fairs, et cetera, where unsafe equipment may be being used.

3:30 p.m.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 160, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of section 1 of this bill is to repeal a provision in the act that permits an employer to request either before or after the commencement of a strike or lockout that a vote be held on the employer’s last offer. Section 2 of the bill repeals a provision of the act that permits employees in a bargaining unit who are not members of the trade union to participate in a strike vote or a vote to ratify a proposed collective agreement.

ONTARIO HERITAGE AMENDMENT ACT

Mrs. Campbell moved first reading of Bill 161, An Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to make several amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974. Section 1 of the bill removes the 180-day limitation on the ability of a municipality to prohibit the demolition or removal of a building or structure that has been designated under the act. Section 2 of the bill enacts a new part V(a) of the act that provides powers to the Minister of Culture and Recreation to designate properties of historic or architectural value in Ontario. These powers are similar to the powers already provided to municipalities under the act.

The bill also contains the provision permitting the minister to provide assistance to individuals, institutions, agencies, organizations and municipalities for the purpose of conserving buildings of historic or architectural value in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask for the concurrence of the House to revert to “Motions”.

Agreed to.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the motion to reconstitute the standing committees of the House as adopted October 6, 1980, be amended as follows:

Resources development: Mr. Mackenzie be substituted for Mr. Lupusella, Mr. Di Santo be substituted for Mr. Makarchuk and Ms. Gigantes be substituted for Mr. Swart.

Justice: Mr. Renwick be substituted for Mr. Cooke and Mr. Ziemba be substituted for Mr. Young.

Social development: Mr. R. F. Johnston be substituted for Mr. Martel.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

In the absence of Hon. Mr. Auld, Mr. Yakabuski moved second reading of Bill 59, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a lot of pleasure to move second reading of Bill 59, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act. Since the last major revision of the Game and Fish Act in 1961 there have been many changes in the public’s attitude towards wildlife and increasing demand for wildlife-based recreation by residents of Ontario and by the tourist industry.

The commercial exploitation of wildlife has become increasingly important in Ontario as well as the rest of the world, and the need for amendment to the act has been expressed by a large number of citizens of this province. Furthermore, as new developments in wildlife management techniques occur, and as more effective training of law enforcement staff has been achieved, the necessity for amendment to significant portions of the act has become more evident.

This bill deals with the needs of new wildlife management techniques. It provides the statutory changes for activities that have been traditional in Ontario but have not been adequately covered by the current statutes. It provides for the additional controls necessary for the preservation of the use of wildlife resources of the province.

In addition to providing for the regulation, restriction, possession and use of traps and the establishment of educational programs for trappers, it embodies all the principles of Bill 15, presented by the member for Etobicoke this year. That was supported by the government as well as members of the opposition parties. All the foregoing measures combine to provide much more clearly the objective of the government to have wildlife dealt with in a humane way.

The bill recognizes the necessity for making regulations responsive to social changes. Not only does it address the requirements for clearer and more precise control involving hunters, trappers and the other users of wildlife resources numbering three or four million people, but it also resolves many concerns expressed by naturalists, humane associations and animal welfare groups numbering between five and seven million people.

These new consumptive users, whose concerns are increasing, can be served more readily by much that has been added to the statute by the bill directly or by the enabling section which allows for making regulations under a variety of terms and conditions.

The amendments to the act recognize the improved training being provided by the government to our own conservation officers and to any member of the police force appointed under the Police Act. It provides for the use of discretion in the seizure of anything related to an offence against the act and, further, it places the decision respecting the forfeiture of all items seized with the court rather than with the ministry. At the same time, the fine which a court may impose has been increased from a maximum of $1,000 to $5,000.

In this respect, the provisions of the bill dealing with the discretion of officers, responsibility of the minister with respect to seized game and fish or equipment, forfeiture by the court and the increase in the maximum fine that may be imposed by the court are all included to make the act consistent with the Fisheries Act, Canada, and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, Canada, which ministry officers already enforce. In some cases, minor changes in wording have been made to assist the courts where the act was previously considered somewhat ambiguous.

To many members, the extension of the act to include amphibians and reptiles may be curious, but I believe this inclusion will be supported by a large number of people in Ontario to ensure that the scientific and commercial use of these poorly known and largely misunderstood animals does not lead to the endangerment of their status as part of the fauna of this province.

4:30 p.m.

As a result of scholarships provided by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, studies of elk have indicated that particular species of big game is again endangered. A number of sections of this bill refer to this species, which will receive protection until the ministry is able to be assured that the populations of elk are no longer threatened.

Faced with the decline in big game species, notably deer, elk and moose, it is essential that hunting be controlled in an intensive manner in small geographic units. The bill provides for regulating the number of hunters in these, as well as addressing the problem of obtaining accurate assessments by requiring mandatory reporting of hunters’ success.

The bill also recognizes that veterans, victims of accidents, or persons disabled by birth defects should be exempt from some sections of the act to ensure that their handicaps do not interfere with their opportunities to hunt, despite their inability to do so without the use of a mechanized vehicle.

While recognizing that the hunting of raccoon at night during the open season and the training of dogs to hunt raccoon and other animals during the rest of the year has been a traditional activity in Ontario, the bill also addresses the illegal use of lights or other use of lights from vehicles which has led to illegal activities, especially the jack-lighting of deer.

This bill is being supported by a large number of interested people throughout Ontario and is an essential amendment to the Game and Fish Act which will assist the Ministry of Natural Resources in the administration of the statute to provide for the management, perpetuation and rehabilitation of wildlife resources in the province.

I recommend that this bill be approved by this House.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I am most anxious to participate in the debate in relation to Bill 59 as a person who is very much interested in this particular field. But it is an indication of the same government doing the same things about nearly any kind of policy you might talk about.

When they stand and tell us they have not done anything in this particular field since 1961, it does not surprise me in the least. After having arrived at a position in all of the world, as it were, as being a place for the outdoors and hunting, it seems a shame that we have now to start managing the hunters, in a country that used to have all kinds of wildlife.

With minimal involvement, this government should have had by now the kind of management they have had in Sweden for the last 25 years, where the biggest problem they have today is too much wildlife. They addressed themselves to the problem. Their forest management included the kind of cover that those animals needed, and they managed their herds; they did not manage the hunters or the people who were pursuing the game. Any kind of management of game and fish in this country of ours is long overdue.

The people in the hunting and fishing organizations have for many years cried out to the government to put a fee on these things and to put in the kind of management that would guarantee not only to people today but also to subsequent generations that the game and fish of this great land of ours would be protected, that it would be there for us to have the use of and would be there for succeeding generations.

This has not been done. While some of the things we are dealing with in the bill are meaningful, I am suggesting to the parliamentary assistant that when we get down to issuing two licences to hunt one moose and to not having the kind of game that is required before these regulations are passed, we are putting the cart before the horse. It is just about time the government addressed itself to the other aspects of the fish and game management of this great province of ours.

The fact is that for many years we have had people from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters pursuing regulations, but in the first instance we have not answered the need, which is the supplying of the game and fish.

I support the bill because it addresses itself to many aspects of pursuing game which needed upgrading in a more modern way. But the point I want to make wholeheartedly and with everything I can summon here in this debate is that it is about time this government listened to those people in the field and provided the licensing and the funding; actually, the hunters and fishermen are prepared to put in funds themselves, they are not asking the government to supply it. This is mismanagement of the worst order if we do not address ourselves to that problem before we give so much time to the regulations that are going to direct these hunters and fishermen.

The bill that stands before us in nearly every instance is doing a good job as it relates to the protection of the game and upping the fines; I concur with putting a substantial fine on those people who break the regulations. Most everyone who participates throughout the province has seen fit to do so also, because the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, which is the largest organization in Ontario, is agreeing with nearly every section. But when we get into the clause-by-clause stage of consideration of the bill, we could look at it a little more carefully and maybe alter some of the areas that need it.

In conclusion, I would like to say I had occasion to go to a neighbouring state to hunt. I never thought that could happen. But the fact is, there are more hunters in the state of Pennsylvania, more deer taken by hunters, more management of deer herds done in the state of Pennsylvania, than this province of ours has seen fit to do. It is one of the reasons they get 500,000 people hunting in that state every fall -- a tremendous number more than can possibly hunt in Ontario -- simply because we have had no management of the game.

I will leave that thought with the parliamentary assistant, and I hope that in addressing himself to changing some of the regulations as they relate to the game laws he is going to do something meaningful to provide game.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate as the leadoff speaker for our party mainly because our natural resources critic, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), is at this particular moment on his way to Toronto on a bus because of the disruption of air service, and he has been unable to get here. I understand he will not be here until 5:30 this afternoon.

I want to say, in response to the comments made by the parliamentary assistant, that our party supports the move being made to amend the Game and Fish Act to add additional controls. I think this party has been in the forefront for many years in speaking out on the need for meaningful wildlife management in this province.

In reaction to the comments of the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), I can only say that his comments perhaps indicate one of the misconceptions that many people in southern Ontario have about the situation of big game, and small game as well, in northern Ontario, as well as in other parts of the province. There is no way the anglers and hunters of this province wish to have the decimation of the herds that has taken place in southern Ontario occur in northern Ontario. They realize, as do conservationists and people in the tourist outfitting industry and so on, that there is a tremendous need for meaningful management for the preservation of the herds. That means self-management as well as management by the government.

3:50 p.m.

The idea put forward by the member for Niagara Falls that somehow we should not be managing the hunters, but rather we should be managing the wildlife, I think misses the point. The point is, of course, we should be managing both.

Without adequate controls, we would be subject to the irresponsible hunting by the minority of those individuals who take part in the hunts in this province. I say the minority, but there is that irresponsible minority who are somehow unable to see the future and understand that if there are unlimited takes each year eventually we are not going to have adequate numbers for a sustained regeneration of the herds. We face a very serious problem.

I note that in the bill we deal specifically with elk and the concerns over elk, and we support that. As the parliamentary assistant is aware, we have serious problems with just about every species of big game in this province except for bear. We face a very serious problem in terms of deer, and the ministry is finally recognizing that we have a very serious problem in terms of moose. At this particular time they are trying to experiment with various types of controls to try to ensure that the success rate of the hunt is less than it has been in the past so that in the future we can indeed have a success rate for hunters, because if we do not do something, especially in some areas of the province, we are headed for serious trouble.

The ministry this year has imposed, as the member for Niagara Falls indicated, a pair hunting licence, which is as a result -- as the parliamentary assistant is aware -- of meetings that were held across the province and discussions of the problem and various proposals for controls with interested parties, both conservationists and hunters. We will see how that proposal operates. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters obviously wishes to have a party licence rather than a pair licence; the ministry went this route and is having some disagreement now with the federation over the advisability of that particular regulation as opposed to the party licence.

I would hope that the discussions that have been taking place bear a little more fruit than they seem to have produced over the last few months, because there has been some serious concern expressed by the federation about the lack of response by the minister and ministry to its concerns.

Also, in some areas of the province the ministry has instituted draws for the right to get a licence, and in this way it is even more severely curtailing the numbers of hunters because of a perceived drop in the number of moose being found.

One of the problems that has been raised about the whole control and management of wildlife is the question of clear cuts in forestry. As the member for Niagara Falls indicated, the forestry industry and the wide areas of clear cutting obviously do have an effect in terms of the habitat of wildlife, both moose and deer.

An area that has been clear cut and has not been regenerated is obviously an attractive habitat for these animals, because there is a possibility of feed and they can browse in those areas. But obviously when they are attracted to those areas so are the hunters and there is very little cover, and the success rate in the hunts has shown that we cannot continue to allow unlimited hunting in areas that have been clear cut and expect the hunt to continue in the future. In some areas, those areas have been closed off completely on an experimental basis by the Ministry of Natural Resources to see if these measures will be successful in regenerating the herds.

Obviously, as the parliamentary assistant indicated, the regulations have to be responsive to social change. I am not sure exactly what social change he was referring to. What I am concerned about is the very considerable increase in the numbers of people in this province who enjoy the recreation of hunting and getting out in the fall to enjoy the outdoors and to participate in the hunt.

With these large numbers of people, obviously we have to become involved in managing people or managing hunters. Surely -- and this may be rather an extreme statement -- if we were not to have any hunting, then we would need very little management of the herds. I know that is not completely correct in that severe weather and so on can affect the herds.

I think the parliamentary assistant would agree the greatest pressure right now is hunting. For that reason, we have to manage the hunters. The hunters themselves agree with that. The question is, are the experimental methods being proposed for this year by the ministry adequate and responsive to the concerns the hunters have expressed?

The parliamentary assistant in his opening remarks referred to sections of the bill which make it possible for conservation officers to have more discretion. I would like to deal with that for a moment. Before talking specifically about their discretion, I want to say that no matter what we do in terms of regulation, unless we substantially increase the numbers of conservation officers in this province, the regulations will be ineffective.

At this particular point in time, it is a matter of pure luck -- the conservation officers will accept that and agree with that -- if an individual who is not abiding by the hunting regulations is apprehended. It is bad luck for the person who is apprehended and good luck for the conservation officer. Because they have such a wide area that they are responsible for covering, as well as increasing amounts of paperwork that keep them in their office rather than out in the field, they just cannot adequately do the job. I do not think one would find very many conservation officers who would disagree with that.

The one thing that is interesting in the amendments to this act is the suggestion that the minister could appoint deputy conservation officers for any part of Ontario. The bill removes the stipulation in the old act that they would be without remuneration. Perhaps this is an attempt by the ministry to deal with the shortage of personnel. I hope the parliamentary assistant could clarify that. If it is, I think that is an opportunity to increase the numbers of people who are enforcing the regulations that are put forward in this act. Unless we do that, we are dependent almost solely on the goodwill and common sense of the hunter.

I would say that the majority of hunters in this province are responsible individuals and their organizations are responsible and do self-regulate. Unfortunately, there are numbers of people who, when given the opportunity, will take advantage -- will hunt out of season, will take more than they are licensed to do and so on. Unless we increase the personnel we are not going to be able to regulate that, no matter what regulations are set forward under this bill.

4 p.m.

The parliamentary assistant also pointed out that under the amendments the officers will have greater discretion in terms of seizure. As a northern member I have a great number of complaints -- when I say a great number, I do not want to give the impression it is a very large number, but there are in the area of 10 or 20 or so every year -- from individuals who have had their equipment seized because they have been suspected of being in contravention of the law. Until that question is decided in court, oftentimes they are unable to appeal that seizure. Under this regulation it would be changed from “shall” to “may,” and I think that is a step forward.

However, this gets into another very questionable area which I hope the parliamentary assistant can clarify, and that is the whole question of the rights of native people to hunt in this province. The parliamentary assistant said that one of the aims of the amendment was to make the act consistent with the Fisheries Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act, which are enforced by this ministry. As I am sure the parliamentary assistant is aware, those two pieces of federal legislation in themselves are very contentious issues in the native community of this province. I would like to find out what the position of the ministry is and what regulations are going to be drawn up in terms of the discretion of conservation officers, in enforcing the regulations under this act and under those two pieces of federal legislation.

In most cases, the treaties of this province gave the Indian people the right to fish, trap and harvest wildlife without interference in unoccupied lands that had been given up in the negotiations. With successive moves by the federal Parliament, those rights have been delimited, specifically the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Fisheries Act. In terms of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the right of a native person to hunt geese, for instance, is limited. The question is, what is going to be the attitude of the ministry in enforcing the regulations of those acts and the regulations under this act in terms of moose and deer hunting?

We have to make a commitment to recognize that the Indian people’s rights, as stipulated in the treaties, will be respected. In the past the ministry and conservation officers have said they use discretion when they find an Indian person hunting, whether it be out of the regular season, or whatever, and they may turn a blind eye, especially if the hunting is taking place on unoccupied land. Over the past few years that policy seems to have changed dramatically. As a matter of fact, I understand there was a recent case in the Fort Frances area, Treaty No. 3 area, where the prosecutor speaking for the government stated that it was the Ministry of Natural Resources’ policy now to prosecute to the full extent of the law and to ask for the maximum penalty.

I want to make clear that we support these provisions in the bill to increase the penalties for those people found guilty of contravention of the act. In other words, we agree the court should have the right to impose heavier fines, if the court deems that is necessary to ensure there is adequate deterrent for unauthorized hunting. However, that then begs the question as to how that relates to native rights.

It might be said that this might sound like a bit of a contradiction. On one hand, I am saying we are in favour of increasing control and increased management and in limiting the take, and on the other hand I am saying we should recognize aboriginal rights and treaty rights of native people. But I do not believe that is a contradiction. I do not think there is a conflict between the establishment of good wildlife management programs by this government and the rights of Indian people in this province.

If we recognize that Indians in Ontario have hunting and fishing rights that we must not interfere with because they are set forth in treaties signed between them and the British crown, or later on with some of the northern treaties with this province and with the federal government, then this does not preclude the negotiation and working out of agreements between the ministry and the Indian band chiefs and councils to ensure that there will be conservation where needed in the areas where Indians are going to be hunting.

Perhaps we could look at the possibility of the passage of band council resolutions to ensure that hunting and fishing would be carried out on a sustained yield basis in these areas, and that those band council resolutions could be enforced by the treaty Indians themselves in co-operation with the ministry. I do not know whether that would work, but it is something we should look at very carefully. I think there should be discussions between the ministry and the tripartite organizations and the treaty organizations themselves.

Whenever ministry studies indicate that the number of species appear to be dwindling to a dangerous low, then obviously there has to be regulation of harvest. But I do not think the parliamentary assistant would say -- I am sure he would not say -- that the blame for the dwindling numbers of big game in this province today can be set largely at the door of the treaty Indians.

Obviously the greatest pressure we have in most parts of the province is from those hunters from our part of the community. I agree we should be increasing controls on them; but we have to make clear when doing that what we intend to do in terms of the recognition of the rights of the Indian people. We must make clear how, once recognizing those rights, we will then accommodate them and the need for the regulation of harvest.

I do not think the Ministry of Natural Resources should be able any longer to set regulations unilaterally that will affect Indian people. I hope the parliamentary assistant can make very clear what the ministry’s position is with regard to the regulations under this act and the discretion of conservation officers with regard to Indian hunting and fishing rights.

4:10 p.m.

Again, I want to indicate that we are in general support of the bill. We agree there should be increased enforcement. There are a number of sections of the bill that we do have some questions about. For instance, I would like to know what the minister is going to do in terms of setting conditions on people who have the right to guide. Could the parliamentary assistant indicate to us what kinds of qualifications would be required as set forward in section 5 of this bill? What kinds of qualifications would be required by the minister before he gave permission to someone to guide in this province?

This is something the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has expressed some concern about. The federation, I suppose, is not in agreement with my comments, at least in general, about native treaty rights and the possibility of self-regulation by Indian peoples. However, it is very concerned about what kinds of qualifications guides would have and what conditions the minister would set under that section of the bill.

In general, for a number of reasons I support the idea of requiring nonresident hunters to hire guides. Obviously in very remote areas it makes sense, if people are travelling into those areas to go hunting, that they have someone who knows the terrain and the wildlife and can assist them.

We spend an awful lot of money in this province every year searching for lost hunters, and if we can avoid that by having a system of guides, then all to the good. Certain states in the United States have this kind of system. Minnesota has an extensive system, I understand, and it is something we should be expanding. I agree with that. I would hope the minister would designate more areas where this would be necessary. But, again, what are the qualifications?

There are a couple of other things I would like to raise that perhaps the parliamentary assistant can respond to in terms of the types of traps that are set forward -- and this relates to the bill that was put forward and passed in this House by my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) -- leghold traps and the whole question of humane trapping systems.

Can the parliamentary assistant indicate to us how the provision to allow a farmer, for instance, to trap on his own land relates to the regulation against use of leghold traps in builtup areas. What if he has a farm in a builtup area? I wonder if the parliamentary assistant could clarify that for us.

Mr. Philip: The farmer is exempt under the present bill.

Mr. Wildman: As my colleague says, he is exempt under the present bill. How does that relate to the whole aim we were looking at under the bill put forward by my colleague from Etobicoke?

Mr. Riddell: Farmers do not have time to trap.

Mr. Wildman: I can remember, when I was a kid, spending a lot of time getting rid of groundhogs for a couple of my neighbours.

There is also the question of giving an exemption for the wearing of a badge in a conspicuous place. In my area at this time of year, in the partridge season and so on, we see lots of hunters walking around with badges on their backs, and I think it is a very good idea. I wonder why the parliamentary assistant wants to exempt this, even in remote areas. There was an inquest into a very tragic death just recently northwest of Thunder Bay, where a hunter, as the coroner concluded, obviously not suspecting there would be anyone in the area, did what most hunters would agree is a very unwise thing to do. He heard a sound, he shot, and unfortunately hit and killed an Indian woman who was trapping in the area. It was just a matter of pure coincidence, but I wonder why we do not do all we can to ensure that people in the bush are wearing as bright and conspicuous clothing as possible, even in very remote areas. I would like some clarification under section 10 of the act on that question.

About the control of dogs, which is also raised in this bill, I understand the parliamentary assistant, on behalf of the minister, has put forward an amendment which will be moved in committee.

Every year I get all kinds of complaints, both in June and September, about bear hunters in my area using dogs. They are mostly nonresidents, mostly American hunters who come into the area to hunt bear. I think they have the impression that the area of northern Ontario, once one gets outside the cities, is all uninhabited so one can run roughshod all through the bush with dogs to flush out the game. Every year I get complaints, and I know the local MNR office also gets complaints, from property owners who have packs of dogs running across their property.

I know this provision in the bill is to prevent dogs out of season from running deer, moose and elk because they will run them to death in some cases. It is also to make it incumbent upon hunters and dog owners in general to control their dogs; otherwise, they could be shot by a conservation officer for good reason -- to prevent the running of game until the animal collapses and dies.

What about controlling dogs in season in builtup areas? Why on earth are we not doing something to prevent hunters from running dogs across property without permission? I know the new act on trespass might have some effect but, in terms of dogs in pursuit of an animal, it does not really have any effect. I have seen situations where a bear has been chased into a backyard where a preschool child was playing.

Dogs themselves have become lost. Every year stray dogs are left after the season is over. If MNR personnel find them, they get in touch with the hunter if the dog has identification on it, as it should have. Then the hunter can come back and reclaim his dog.

I wonder if we should not be looking at the control of dogs in the sense not only of protecting deer, moose and elk from being run to death but also of protecting the property owners and the people living in the area. Could not the bill be stated in such a way that the minister could designate certain areas where he would not permit hunting with dogs, whether it be for deer, bear or whatever? Then we would not only be protecting the wildlife but also protecting the people who live in those areas and their properties as well.

One can imagine the consternation of a young mother when her preschooler is not safe during the hunting season in an area that is built up. I am not talking about people living way off in the bush in the middle of nowhere but in areas that are built up and where dogs could chase a bear right into the backyard where the child is playing. There is no mention of bears under this provision and I wish there were.

I think there has to be more control of dogs in season, not only out of season. Dogs are a very useful animal in the hunt and when controlled and handled as they should be they are no problem. But there have been a number of problems, and I would hope this bill would deal with them.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that we are in support of the bill in principle. We will support it on second reading. I think there are a number of questions that have to be raised about certain clauses of the bill, which we will be dealing with in committee. I would hope the parliamentary assistant could respond to some of the questions I have raised about the bill.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I support the bill. I am very glad it is being brought forward and I am quite interested in its many provisions. I think it is regrettable, however, that the interest shown by the members of the House is as low as we can all see as we look around at the empty seats on all sides, particularly on the government side. The minister is not here. The parliamentary assistant, that well-known and friendly hardware storekeeper from Barry’s Bay, sits in the back row with a smile on his face, piloting this legislation through the House.

There was a time when Ontario had a minister of game and fisheries who had a single and sole responsibility of seeing that our game herds and our fish were in good supply for the sportsmen because people thought of Ontario as a hunter’s paradise and a fisherman’s heaven. There is a lot of hunting and fishing, but I guess that the results of that are probably not as good as they once were when they were perhaps more fortuitously managed.

As a matter of fact, to go back pretty well close to 40 years -- and the parliamentary assistant even remembers those days -- when that kind of management was understood and expected by the taxpayers as well as the hunters in this province.

It is too bad we do not still realize when we see the map of Ontario and North America that we should be probably the jurisdiction with the best hunting and fishing of any. That is simply not the case; it is not true any more. We have simply let it slip through our fingers because of inadequate management. The various private hunting and fishing organizations probably do more than anything the government does. The very professional and sportsmanlike attitudes taken by these people are much to be admired.

Occasionally, they do things I do not like very well, as when we get a letter from the hunters and anglers telling us what to do with this bill and saying they are going to look very carefully to see that we do what they say, as if there is some political threat. I do not believe there is a political threat. I think it is simply an indication that there is a strong interest by these people who do not spend all of their hours hunting and fishing but sit together going over proposed legislation, make proposals to the government and sometimes to the opposition, although that seems to be quite rare, and then see that their proposals are followed up in every way possible.

I do not want to be critical of the parliamentary assistant. Now that we do not have a ministry of game and fisheries, but only a Ministry of Natural Resources that is all-inclusive, that looks after our timber resources and our mines and our conservation authorities, I know that it is really very difficult for the minister or the parliamentary assistant to have his finger on any of the details that are so significant and important. I regret that because it simply means that the whole level of interest in this House is deteriorating.

There was a time that our committee meetings dealing with these matters would be crowded and one could not get a seat in the committee room. The minister and his officials would be there, and hunters and anglers and others would be crowding in to be sure that their views were made known though their own members of the Legislature. They also had an opportunity to put them themselves. I regret that.

Now it seems all we do is spend an inordinate amount of money with the Tory advertising agencies to get those beautiful four-coloured pictures, which are then put in the New Yorker magazine to indicate that if you come up here you can swim with a lady in a bikini and catch lots of fish. I think probably the first is true, but the second is probably somewhat more questionable.

I think the government’s approach to this whole matter is one of advertising instead of coming to grips with some of the problems that are growing as the lack of a good policy has had its undoubted effects over these 37 years since we have had any significant leadership in this connection.

An hon. member: That is not right at all.

Mr. Nixon: Perhaps the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. R. Taylor), who is not sitting in his seat, would like to take part in the debate and tell us about hunting down in the county of Prince Edward. I see he is now resuming his seat. We can look forward to his contribution.

He knows all about hunting. He told us in a formal speech one time that he himself was the prey, the quarry, and that he was mugged in the corridors of power. I think we should not have had such an open season on Ministers of Energy in those days. It is a shame so many of them were knocked off in such a cruel and unusual way.

I have a high regard for the member as an individual, however, and I will look forward to his contribution to this debate, such as it is.

Along with other members, I have received communications from two or three interested individuals, particularly the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. They have made specific requests that we as members certainly want to respond to.

They have pointed out to us, Mr. Speaker -- and I’m sure you have read your correspondence in this connection -- that there is some concern with section 5 in its prohibiting anyone hiring someone to do some hunting for them. In fact, those people who may be employed as guides would find themselves in a position that is somewhat untenable. A guide in this province very rarely has any kind of status. We do not have a procedure whereby they are designated in any professional way. A person who may be hired by an individual as a guide, or as some sort of an assistant in hunting and trapping, would fall foul of section 5 and be arrested and even fined.

I believe that the government has not given the kind of support to the guiding and outfitting industries that it might. I think probably there is even some kind of nasty and old-fashioned politics associated with it sometimes in some of the more remote areas of the province. But I do believe we ought to establish the professional status of a hunting and fishing guide.

Our community colleges could be used to give the kind of training that young people with some natural bent in that direction and some experience because of their early days spent in the hunting and fishing parts of the province could turn into a very useful and lucrative profession, a means of employment. I believe we have missed out on that.

It would mean we would have to designate those people who had received that sort of training and experience and give them an opportunity to perform their services in a clear and legal way, and it would be an advantage in that connection.

I also notice that the hunters and anglers draw our attention to the fact that in section 29(i) there is a prohibition against allowing hunt dogs or other dogs running at large during deer season in certain designated parts of the province. They make a very good point, namely, that we should include seasons involving other game, particularly moose, and perhaps elk as well.

I see the minister has indicated he wants this bill to go to committee and there may be some amendments in that connection. I sincerely hope that is so. I believe that proposal from the hunters and anglers is a very useful one.

The third matter I want to raise specifically in this connection is the objection raised by coon hunters to the fact that the training of their hounds is restricted under the provisions of this new enactment. They can only train their dogs during the coon season. As they very well point out, that is the time they use their trained dogs to go after the coon. They do not want to spend the time training the dogs. You would agree, Mr. Speaker, with the importance of this matter; otherwise, I would not raise it at this time.

For those people who are ardent coon hunters, presumably it is important. It seems it would be a very easy thing indeed for the government to allow training of those dogs without the proscription we find in the bill that is before us.

4:30 p.m.

An interesting sidelight to this, which perhaps comes more to the root of the problem, was brought to our attention in an article in a magazine called Ontario out of Doors, the June 1980 issue.

The article was written by Cord McIntyre. He points out that Ontario’s definition of hunting makes it very difficult to have the flexibility that is possible in other provinces in the use of dogs and in other areas. In Ontario, hunting is defined in many ways but it does not include the intent to capture and kill the prey. Nova Scotia includes that phrase -- you are not hunting unless you intend to capture and kill the prey. It seems to me that makes sense. If our definition of hunting includes the intent to capture or kill, it means that our hunters could be training their dogs and may be perfecting their own techniques without falling afoul of the law under some of these circumstances.

I feel sure that with the interest being shown in this bill at this time, and the fact that the minister has indicated it will go to committee, we can correct these matters. They may seem trivial, when we look at our budget of $16 billion -- and our overall deficit of $37 billion, including the municipalities -- and when we think of the large affairs associated with other aspects of government. Yet we are empowered here to see to it that our game and our fish are kept in good numbers and that we encourage the hunting population to grow in number themselves and have an opportunity to catch their quarry and their prey. It is a traditional aspect of life in this province.

I happen to come from an area where, although we do have a surprising number of deer and big game of that type, most of the hunting is done for the ubiquitous groundhog that my honourable colleague mentioned in the closing section of his remarks. Maybe we ought to do something more to encourage the hunting of groundhogs which, in my part of the world, are becoming a serious menace. Even though they eat only the very best alfalfa and soybean sprouts, nobody eats them very much even though the meat ought to be of the very highest quality. Maybe we should take this up with the director of the legislative restaurant to see what we could work out.

An hon. member: It could not be any worse.

Mr. Nixon: I, for one, am not really prepared to take that route. But anybody who wants some interesting hunting, and wants to get out in some of the most beautiful terrain in Ontario, is very welcome to come to my farm. I would not mind them stopping off and speaking to Dorothy so she knows what is going on out there when all the blasting starts, but we would certainly welcome you.

I feel that too many people are posting their properties with some feeling that people they do not know are coming out from the big cities, tramping around and doing God knows what damage. I think it is a shame that we do not have a better understanding that most of the people, I would say almost 100 per cent, who are interested in hunting are also interested in the preservation and conservation of our wildlife and our natural terrain.

There may be the feeling that some of the hunters we see from time to time have, among their equipment, a bottle of booze. This of course is probably one of the worst things. I know the parliamentary assistant will agree that it is one of the worst things that possibly could be associated with hunting or managing a gun.

One of the good things that has happened recently, in my view, is the large number of immigrants who over the last 10 years have moved into the cities. In my own area they have moved into Hamilton and so on. They have come from a tradition of hunting that is much stricter and more disciplined than what we are used to here in our own tradition, where there is always lots of land, lots of game and anybody who did not have a gun was not a real man. I think we have rejected that kind of an attitude.

These people who have come from certain countries in Europe, particularly Italy, France and Germany, are disciplined hunters. They know what they are doing. In my experience they never fail to come to the farmhouse to be sure they get permission as required under the law and then to go about their business.

There have been reports, I suppose, as there always will be, of people who have not lived up to the expectation and have acted something less than what we would hope for. But my own experience has been excellent, and I am glad that a good many farmers in our area welcome hunters. It annoys me when I get a phone call from somebody saying they object to the guns going off two or three fields away because it makes them nervous. I object to that and get myself into trouble from time to time responding to those objections.

In closing, I do want to say that I am glad the government has incorporated into the bill the provisions of the bill of the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) which was discussed and passed by the House. I know that he deserves a great deal of credit for it. A private citizen we sometimes see around here, Avril Mitchell, deserves some of the credit as well because of her lobbying on all sides in favour of the bill of the member for Etobicoke. She, probably more than anyone else, made it possible for the nonpartisan approach to a matter of this importance.

I look forward to having the bill discussed in committee, and I am glad to see that the parliamentary assistant has indicated he is prepared to bring forward certain amendments. I regret the absence of the minister but, of course, now that we do not have a ministry of game and fishery but only a Ministry of Natural Resources, he has to concern himself with mines and the forests, and there is very little time for the policy of the government to be brought to bear on game and fisheries.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak very briefly on this bill. I just want to comment, as others have done, that there seems to be general support by various segments of the community for this bill we have before us. As the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk mentioned, we have received letters from various groups in support of this bill, including the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping. In addition, I have received a petition with some 46 names on it and I will send it over to the parliamentary assistant. It is in support of this bill. It is a petition to further ban the leghold trap in Ontario and deals with that aspect of it. It says, “Yes, I support the passage of Bill 59, which will further limit the uses for which a leghold trap may be set and also limit the locations in which the leghold trap may be placed.” That is signed, as I say, by 46 people, with the first signature being that of Debbie Hurst. I will send this over to the parliamentary assistant.

My colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) has covered the principles of this bill for our party, and I think for the citizens of this province, in a very able manner. He has covered the concerns of the native people with regard to their right to hunt and fish unimpeded, the concerns with regard to seizures and the concerns about the fact that the bill means little unless we have adequate numbers of conservation officers, to enforce the provisions of the bill. He and others have talked about the concerns of the farmers.

I notice the amendment we have before us from the government deals with only one of the concerns of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping. If I am wrong in that, please, excuse me, but as I see the amendments which I have before me the minister has dealt with the one about the harassment of moose by dogs but none of the others. I am not going to go over them except to say that I hope when the parliamentary assistant rises to speak he will give the reasons why the government has not moved amendments in accordance with the requests of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping.

4:40 p.m.

I want to deal briefly with a section of the bill -- which incidentally is one of the recommendations of the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping. Their concern is the same as mine, and that is with regard to the humane aspect of this bill in the trapping of any type of animals. It seems to me there is one shortcoming in this bill, and I admit immediately that in one respect it was a shortcoming in the bill that was presented by my colleague the member for Etobicoke. There was a deliberate shortcoming there because we had to receive the unanimous support of this House if that bill was going to be passed, and it was passed. This might have prevented that from taking place, but I think it is something we should consider at this time. That is the new section 29(a) dealing with leghold traps and the banning generally of the use of leghold traps.

This bill contains a provision whereby the minister may make an order designating municipalities or areas in Ontario where section 2 banning leghold traps does not apply. I agree with that. I think there probably are areas in this province where that should not apply, particularly in various parts of the north. But it seems to me that by the same token, and perhaps with even more compelling reason, the minister should be able to give exemptions to the provisions of (a) and (b) of subsection 3; they say subsection 2 banning the leghold traps does not apply to a person who owns a licence to hunt or trap fur-bearing animals and to a farmer who uses a body-gripping trap or leghold trap on his own lands in defence or preservation of his property or in circumstances referred to in subsection 6 of section 58.

I think we all agree with those principles. But I suggest there are areas in the province, particularly close to builtup areas, where the minister should be able to give exemption. It might be argued that the municipality should have this control, and I might have some agreement with that. But whether it is done that way -- and that can be looked at -- or whether it is done by the minister having the authority that those exemptions would not apply in some areas, we should have a provision in this act that leghold traps should not be set in areas immediately adjacent to urban areas. There may be other areas too where this should apply. I anticipate that it would not be used very often, but it would be helpful to have that clause in this bill. We will be moving an amendment to permit that when we get into clause-by-clause discussion of this bill.

I should point out that I have had some 98 letters sent to me at this time -- and I believe there are some others that have not yet been counted -- expressing that concern. I would just like to read into the record a letter from Mr. Harold Wightman, 117 Bald Street, Welland. He writes:

“Dear Mr. Swart: I would like to commend you and your colleague Ed Philip of Etobicoke for your support in the recent passage of Bill 15, amendment to the Games and Fisheries Act, which prohibits the use of leghold and body traps by laymen.

“This bill eliminates the problem of these traps in large cities. However, I do not feel that this bill deals effectively with leghold and body traps near small cities and villages that are surrounded by farm and wood lot areas.

“Since many suburbs in the Welland area and throughout Ontario border rural areas, I feel that a bill is needed to limit use of leghold and body traps to trappers in the northern wilderness only.

“I do not feel that part-time trappers near urban areas who are not earning their living from trapping or farmers also near urban areas should be allowed to use these traps.

“At the present time anything you could do to facilitate the passing of such legislation would be very much appreciated by your constituents and the public in general.”

That is an indication, when I have 98 of these letters, of the feeling of the public out there about the dangers of the use of leghold traps adjacent to the urban areas.

I also have another rather lengthy letter, and I am not going to read it into the record at this time because it perhaps can be read more appropriately when we are dealing with the amendment. It is from the president of the Humane Society in Welland, Mrs. Mary Gill, who lists the number of animals, and even one or two humans, that have got into the leghold traps in the last year in the areas immediately adjacent to the urban centres.

I think that completes the remarks I want to make at this time. Like my colleagues, and I guess everyone in the House, I will be supporting this bill. Having said that, there are improvements that can be made which have been mentioned by my colleague the member for Algoma, and others which will be mentioned by my colleague the member for Etobicoke and, for that matter, others that have been mentioned by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

It is my hope that the parliamentary assistant, when he gets up to speak, will explain why the government has not brought in the amendments as requested by the two associations which I have mentioned and express his views with regard to the amendment I have now sent over to him.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, my comments with respect to Bill 59 will be brief. I just wanted to bring one point to the attention of the parliamentary assistant, with respect to section 30 of the bill which is a proposed amendment to section 78 of the act.

I understand that amendments are now before the House, or will be brought before the House, that will allow not only the field trial but also the training of certain types of dogs with the approval and authority of the minister.

David Grasse of my constituency brought to me an article and other comments with respect to the training requirements for certain types of these dogs which naturally might be done outside of the actual hunting season. I understand that this amendment, which is going to be replacing what was proposed in section 30, will provide under proper circumstances the authority for these individuals, whether they are dealing with dogs that are involved with raccoons or with other types of hunting dogs, to have them continue their training and development.

I would ask the parliamentary assistant, if my understanding is correct that this is what will be allowed, to explain to me just on what terms and how he sees the authority is going to be granted for the proper training of these animals by the owners of them. Is this going to be quite readily available? Just how will this be handled so that the field trial and the training interest, which a number of people have, will be able to be attended to in a fair and balanced way?

I look forward to having his comment on that, as I am sure that other members of the House have received comments from their own constituents who are interested in this particular sport and development of dogs.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments on this bill. I think in principle we support the bill. There are a number of questions I have that I hope I can address to the parliamentary assistant, and perhaps he can answer either at the end of this reading or in committee.

4:50 p.m.

There are parts of the bill that I must say I could not have written better myself, and I appreciate the fact that the minister has taken a bill that I introduced into the House and incorporated it into his bill. It also makes a great deal of sense that we incorporate the act that was passed that I had introduced. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to have two separate acts, and it is reasonable to consolidate the laws in this case.

However, there are some questions I have addressed to the minister in correspondence as a result of comments I have had from different municipalities and humane societies and individuals after my bill passed in this House with the unanimous support of the House.

I guess the major problem we have is that once an act is passed, how do we make sure it is not only enforced but also encouraged? The problem is that it is fairly easy to ban, as we did, the use of leghold and body-gripping traps in urban areas. The next problem we are faced with is that some municipalities, not all, do not have readily available those kinds of humane devices that will allow urban dwellers to trap nuisance animals easily.

I wrote to the minister and expressed my concern. I also had a conversation with him and said that possibly two types of action were necessary. In the first place, we should at least take an inventory of all urban areas where box traps may be borrowed and/or rented and prepare a list to be made available to the public and particularly to corn unity information offices and so forth in urban areas.

In my own borough of Etobicoke, the local municipality will not give out the names of rental places where a person may go and rent a humane trap to get rid of a nuisance animal. They feel that in the past they have come under criticism that they were favouring one rental company over another. It seems only reasonable the ministry should therefore publish a list without discriminating about places where those traps are available. In those areas where they are not available, it should set up some kind of mechanism whereby local humane societies or other groups can be encouraged, perhaps with financial assistance from the ministry, to make these available.

It is ridiculous to ban the use of something and then not offer a humane and reasonably accessible alternative. We cannot expect the rather cruel practice of setting body hold and leg-gripping traps in urban areas to cease unless we provide alternatives that are as readily available. Otherwise, some people unfortunately will take the easy way out and set them anyway. I suspect they will not go to a licensed trapper, or someone who knows how to set a leghold trap to catch a nuisance animal. Rather they will simply go down and borrow a leghold trap from grandfather’s farm or find a rusty one in the cottage, or indeed may even still go down to the local hardware store and buy one.

An alternative plan that would be much preferable to that would be for the ministry to provide funds to local municipalities, or humane societies where they are designated as the animal control agencies, for the purchase of box traps so they can be made available to the public. Also, it should make funds available so those agencies and municipalities can make known to the public that these are available.

We are fortunate in Metropolitan Toronto whereby the Toronto Humane Society does have these traps available and, for a very nominal fee that is reimbursed on the return of the trap, people can borrow humane traps.

I discussed this possibility with the minister some time ago and the minister at that time did say it made sense. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant can tell us what progress, if any, has been made.

The other area I would like to deal with is the series of problems that have been brought to my attention by the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping. This is an organization I consulted with over a period of a year and a half in the preparation, writing and rewriting of the bill I introduced in the House and which was later passed. I think a lot of credit goes to this organization in assisting me in developing my knowledge of trapping and in bringing in a bill that was a lot more practical than the bills introduced by my former colleagues in the House, such as Dr. Shulman and other people, who introduced bills that were a lot simpler but perhaps not too practical.

I would like to refer the parliamentary assistant to a letter to members of the Legislative Assembly from the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping of June 5, in which they raise a number of interesting points. In the first place, in writing to the minister, they say that many of the points they had asked for, the minister says can be covered through various trapping regulations. My question is, if these proposals by the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping make sense, why not put them into the act? It is as simple as that.

They raise a number of questions for which I think they have been lobbying for many years now. The first question is the professional development or training of trappers. It does not make sense to allow just anyone to go out and trap animals, regardless of the location in which they are trapping. I think that it has been shown over and over again -- it certainly has been shown by my experience in urban areas -- that people would set leghold and body-gripping traps particularly that do a lot of damage to animals, be they domestic in the case of urban areas, or wildlife in the case of urban and rural areas. Often the most damage is done by people who are not knowledgeable.

The Canadian Association for Humane Trapping has been lobbying for many years to have more professional development of trappers, because licensed trappers tend to create less suffering than do most people who are not knowledgeable. I notice that this bill does contain a section in which this is dealt with. The ministry is going to go ahead with the education programs. However, the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping suggests that only trappers who have passed the test should be allowed to trap animals.

I recognize that perhaps this cannot be done overnight, and that it takes a certain period of time to put this into operation. I hope that the minister or the parliamentary assistant can give us a timetable. It may well be that we may have to grandfather people into it, but surely new people who are applying for licences should have to pass some kind of test. I would ask what he has been doing in conjunction with the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping and other trapping groups to ensure that over a period of time at least we gradually weed out those people who are not knowledgeable in trapping animals and that only those who have passed some kind of course or program will be trapping.

There is another question which I think may raise a number of issues. I am sure the parliamentary assistant has a copy of this letter. If he does not, I can send him over a copy and perhaps he will address each of the points. I do not want to prolong the discussion at length, but one of the suggestions, which I think makes a lot of sense, is, why not put a limit on the age of those who are allowed to trap?

They suggest that section 19(3) of Bill 59, which amends section 58(6) of the act, should be altered by adding “over the age of 16,” or words to that effect, to the words, “a farmer or any member of his family residing with him upon these lands.” They simply suggest that it requires a certain amount of maturity to trap and that perhaps there should be an age restriction on that.

5 p.m.

I hope the parliamentary assistant will inform the House why the amendments requested by the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping are not being introduced by the government. I have gone through each of the amendments which the ministry intends to propose in committee of the whole and I can find nothing related to the Canadian Association for Humane Trapping’s suggestions. I hope the parliamentary assistant will be able to deal with these. If not, it may be necessary for us, albeit on short notice, to introduce one or two of their amendments unless there is some assurance that their ideas and proposals will be implemented through regulation or some other process.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to Bill 59, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act. I was interested in the opening comments of the member for Renfrew South, the parliamentary assistant to the minister, when he outlined some of the major statutory changes that are required under the bill and are supported by a number of anglers and hunters in Ontario.

I suppose the intent of it, as he stated before, is the preservation of wildlife in Ontario as related to game animals, game birds and fish. Without a good wildlife management program, all species can be considered endangered under the act or, in fact, in Ontario.

My colleague the member for Niagara Falls brought to the attention of the members of the House the importance of good management, conservation and preservation programs which are available in Sweden and the extent to which they have been successful in their good forestry and soil management. I think he brought forward a key example there.

Also, in the state of Pennsylvania, he informed the House of the number of deer there that are shot every year. The number of hunters there outnumber the number of deer that are shot, but you are looking at hundreds of thousands of deer that are shot there. This only bears out the fact that they have good management in wildlife and forestry.

I listened to his comments when he suggested that in a reforestation program in the province we should set aside certain areas for grazing lands for elk, deer and moose. I think these are good points which perhaps have been lacking in the program of the present government for a number of years in this particular area. I suggest those points should be well taken.

The member for Algoma mentioned the poor management of wildlife in the southern part of Ontario where a great number of deer are lost through automobile or vehicle accidents. I have not seen too many deer in my particular area around Sherkston. Years ago there used to be a number of them travelling down there, looking for places to eat. I understand that the ministry is now considering opening up some of these areas in the southern part of Ontario. I hope the government does not make it too broad and destroy what deer are left in that particular area so they may be able to continue growing in size and numbers of herds.

The minister indicated that he had opened the door for some handicapped persons to continue to enjoy the sportsmanship of game hunting, and I think that is one of the things we can accept. I think this is a step in the right direction. Perhaps it is long overdue.

I have taken note of the discretionary powers the minister has under the disposition of property. It can run into a sizeable amount of money for a person. He may even go in and seize an aircraft. The fines have been increased, and we all agree with that. I think it is a good measure to put in some levers to control poaching in areas of Ontario, but I just wonder at the words concerning the discretion of the minister. I think all goods that are obtained where there is a violation of the act should go on the auction block. In some cases, I understand a hunter may lose certain valuable guns because of not knowing all the gun laws as it is left to the discretion of the ministry.

The reason I bring this to the attention of the parliamentary assistant is that a person may say: “It is a good gun and we are not going to let go of it. We are going to use it for the purpose of hunting wolves.” I suggest when there is a violation of the act all goods collected in this particular way should go on the auction block. If that person pays the fine, he should at least have an opportunity of getting his valuable gun back.

As I said before, the fine was raised for those in violation of the act. I see nothing in the act in the area of polluters. I do not have to tell the parliamentary assistant of the serious problem of acid rain in Ontario and the number of lakes that are being destroyed by this particular type of pollution. As a member of the select committee dealing with matters of uranium waste in Ontario, and mine tailings in particular, I can say that this is an area where I think the industry is doing a good job. They are seeding it down with special grasses as a cover crop, particularly in the Elliot Lake area. I can see that this is going to encourage deer and other animals to use this as a good grazing area.

I am sure the parliamentary assistant is aware of the serious problem that relates to mine tailings. With the high contents of heavy metals, such as radium 226 and thorium, and through the process of growing of the grasses and the forage that may be there, the pass-on can perhaps cause a serious problem to the animals that may be pasturing on this particular strip of land. They are looking at a number of acres that are going to be required in this particular area, and perhaps in two years’ time they are going to have to dispose of 10 million tons of mine tailings. If they are going to sod it or seed it down into grass, they are going to have animals grazing on it and we are going to have hunters go out and hunt and kill them. The pass-on of these toxic chemicals or waste can be serious to human beings.

I suggest particularly in the fishing area of this bill that provision should have been put in that the polluter must pay for the damage done to the wildlife in Ontario. I think I mentioned before about our first citizens in Ontario, the Indians, who have lost many of their rights to fish in some of the lakes and streams of northwestern Ontario. They have lost their rights to food and their rights to sell the game or the fish or whatever it may be. That has had a serious effect upon these human beings. When we apply a fine to the violators for the killing of game and wildlife, it should apply to the polluter as well.

I was looking also at section 18 of the act. It says, “No person shall take, destroy or possess the eggs or nests of any game birds, except with the written authority of the minister to take, destroy or possess the eggs or nests for educational or scientific purposes.” I think that is a pretty good section, but I have a press release here from a constituent of mine, Erno Rossi, MA. He is a teacher, a naturalist and author of two recent nonfiction books. The best-selling one was The White Death Blizzard of 77. This is the letter:

“Please help the tern.” The common tern flies high above the water. I am sure the parliamentary assistant and many of the members are familiar with this particular water bird, which is a beautiful black and white bird. “This sight may soon disappear, because studies confirm that the tern is in serious trouble.

“Why? ‘The large ring-billed gull is experiencing a population explosion,’ says Brock University biologist Professor Ralph Morris, and no one is certain as to why this is occurring.’

“One thing is clear, however, and that is that the large gulls begin nesting two or three weeks prior to the tern and often there is little nesting space for the smaller birds.

5:10 p.m.

“When we look at the tern nesting island near Brighton, on Lake Ontario, the message is clear. There were 7,000 tern nests there in the 1950s, 1,000 in 1972, 79 in 1975 and only three in 1977. At the same time, the gull nests have increased to 25,000, an impressive increase from their first nesting in 1953.

“The Hamilton Harbour islands saw a drop from 150 terns in 1972 to zero in 1974, while at the same time, Muggs Island in Toronto saw a decline from 700 terns to zero. Ring- billed gull numbers at Muggs climbed in that period from about 4,500 to 7,000 birds. South Limestone Island in Georgian Bay witnessed a depressing slump from approximately 1,800 terns in 1972 to zero in 1974, while ring-billed gulls climbed from 25,000 to 38,000 birds.

“Tern numbers in Lake Erie are experiencing the same sort of decline as Lake Ontario and Georgian Bay. As early as 1965, research revealed that the reduction in terns on Mohawk (Gull) Island in Lake Erie near Port Maitland was caused by the recent nesting of herring and ring-billed gulls on the island.” Conservation officer and naturalist author John Toll confirmed recently that the terns have been completely replaced by the gulls on Mohawk Island.

“Two nesting colonies at Port Colborne, on Lake Erie, confirm the sorry news. Nesting terns have virtually been pushed off the Canada Furnace site by the larger ring-billed gulls, while at the Port Colborne lighthouse colony, the second largest tern colony on the Great Lakes, the terns have been forced to nest in exposed areas where man is devastating their numbers. Vandals take great delight in throwing at each other the tern eggs and helpless chicks. Tourists who step from boats will wander among the nesting birds and allow their dogs to trample the eggs and mangle the young birds. ‘Dogs will be dogs,’ one visitor commented after her two German shepherds had relieved themselves and then terrorized the nesting colonies. In terror, the chicks scatter and many fall from the breakwall into the lake, where they either drown or starve to death. Some of the frightened babies will seek sanctuary at the nest of another bird and here further disaster awaits them. The refugee chicks are killed by the other adult birds whose territory has been invaded by the defenceless baby terns.

“This obscenity at the Port Colborne lighthouse colony must be stopped before the next spring nesting season. The tern needs our help and I’m forming a group with a base at Port Colborne High School, with the major purpose of convincing governments at all levels to declare the Port Colborne lighthouse nesting colony a bird sanctuary from April 1 to August 31 of each year. This sanctuary must be fenced, with trespassing both prohibited and prevented during the crucial nesting period. This colony can survive and prosper with our help. Left to itself, the tern may go the way of the passenger pigeon, and with each new threatened species we have to ask ourselves, can man be far behind?’”

He brings forward a very important question, as we look at the bill as it relates to endangered species. I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that the Ministry of Natural Resources must give consideration to this request that the harbour at Port Colborne should be considered a bird sanctuary.

These are beautiful birds, and they do provide an element in our ecology. In the total environment on the waterfront there is a need for this bird.

I make the request to the parliamentary assistant that some consideration be given to making this a bird sanctuary, so that we do not have boaters and fishermen going into a nesting area, whether it is for this type of bird or even ducks. I suggest it is a site for breeding purposes for game birds as well.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, what concerns me about this legislation, and what I would seek absolute assurances on, is that in no way does it impinge upon or supersede any treaty rights as they exist. It has a fairly broad range of implications over a wide number of species of animals. In this House we all know the justifiable feelings of native peoples in this regard, and we know of the constant incursion by all levels of government with respect to what they consider to be essential to their livelihood. Standing here, I am not sure one way or the other. I am seeking assurances. I am seeking to know from the ministry whether they have had the fullest consultation with those most gravely and directly affected in this particular regard.

As is usual in this country, and more so at this time than at any other, there are nice overlapping powers between the federal government and the provincial governments with respect to migratory species, various forms of hunting and fishing rights in the province. In some areas the federal government has primacy of jurisdiction. In other areas the provinces have had to take the matters to the Supreme Court of this country. I know of at least 10 decisions that affect this very area. My memory, and my memory is clouded and unclear as I stand here today, is that there have been some very nice resolutions about who has authority over particular kinds of species, even if the federal government has not legislated in the field, and whether or not you can come to the unoccupied territory and lay down your strictures, regulations and nostrums in this particular regard. In some instances it has been done, and there have been some cases where the federal government has come along and subsequently passed legislation overriding provincial legislation such as in New Brunswick and British Columbia. Then there has been a contest in the courts as to whether or not they had the authority to so dominate the field in this regard, because it was not solely a question of Indian rights but a question of property and civil rights of the province.

All these issues make it necessary for me to have some hesitation with respect to giving carte blanche approval on second reading. I am asking, because of these things and because I think it is only fair that a full survey be made, if the parliamentary assistant will consider that the matter will go into committee in this regard and we can take them section by section.

Incidentally, as I read the legislation, how does the RCMP fit into the picture here? Where, in the determination, could it become apparent which bands have been consulted? Precisely whom has the ministry spoken to, and what accord did it get? Was there any degree of objection to the legislation or feeling that certain exceptions should be made? What were the nature of those? Where are the qualifications? I am sure they exist. I think that in order to be clued in we would have to go into committee to get a determination of that issue.

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief and address myself to two areas of this bill, since it is going into committee.

I would like the parliamentary assistant to be aware of the concern over section 30. It is my understanding that in committee an amendment is going to be discussed.

I have an extensive letter from Mr. Hartley Sherk, secretary-treasurer of the Wentworth Beagle Club, regarding the field trial issue. I think the problem has been addressed by previous speakers. It is simply that these people who are using dogs for field trials need to have some opportunity to train the animals as well, and it would seem that the proposed amendment may address this. We will discuss it, of course, more thoroughly in committee and I will reserve judgement because we may want to make some other minor changes to the amendment. But if this amendment does address this problem and allows for training to take place, then I think that concern has been met.

I should like to comment too on the question of trapping and leghold traps. I know that my friends in the NDP are proposing an amendment that would expand certain restrictions near towns and builtup areas. I will be interested in seeing the amendment when it comes through. I would just like to make a comment to them that they give some thought to the question of how we handle animals that are multiplying in nature without the natural predators that exist farther away from the builtup areas. This is the other side of the argument.

I think of my own riding of Halton-Burlington, which is a rather distinct mixture of urban areas side by side or adjacent to very highly productive farm land. We almost have apartment buildings within a stone’s throw of a corn field. This situation predominates in the riding. I am going to want to give some very serious thought to how this amendment would apply in that kind of situation and how a farmer can control animals that are multiplying virtually unchecked. They do not have the natural predators of the lands as in, for instance, northern Ontario or the more rural areas.

These things are of some fundamental concern. I can think of areas within a mile of a builtup area in proximity to where I live myself where if muskrats were not controlled they would simply take control completely. I think farmers should be allowed to continue to consider trapping as part of their harvest where that kind of thing exists. I personally would not use a leghold trap myself, and I am a very strong supporter of alternative methods of trapping. But I want to throw that in for your consideration: How near is near to a builtup area?

Then there was a comment made about somehow putting a restriction on the age of a trapper. I am sure my friends are aware of what has to happen now, the process of obtaining a permit to sell pelts, if you like, which is done through the Ministry of Natural Resources. If a farmer wants to trap and if he wants to do something useful with the product of that trapping -- which is the pelt -- then he is required to get a number from the ministry which allows him to sell those pelts.

When a young person -- presumably the son or daughter of a farmer -- is following in the footsteps of the father, it seems to me that the age of maturity somehow relates to the way that youngster is brought up and taught and not to some chronological number that you can pigeonhole and say: “Well, that child has reached the age of 16; now he is entitled to trap. Under the age of 16, he is not responsible enough.” I am well aware of children who at the age of 10 are responsible enough to perform very many functions that others at the age of 25 would not be responsible to perform. It seems to me that responsibility should remain with the farmer as the father and, presumably, as the teacher of the offspring. I would just like to bring up those points.

It seems to me that this bill is certainly worthy of our support. We are constantly concerned with the relationship between man and nature in a province that has become quite populous, especially in the southern parts, and the effect it has on fish and game. I can recall that many of the rivers in southern Ontario were destroyed so far as fish-containing rivers were concerned because of the damming of those rivers without regard to migratory fish. I hope that we have learned something since the early 1800s when this area was first settled, and that we have learned something our native people knew all along; that is, we are not here to do battle with nature, but we are part of nature. We are nature. We must take every possible precaution not to destroy it and ourselves at the same time.

You can fight nature for a while and think you are getting away with it, but sooner or later what you realize is that it is necessary to work with her. Everything we can do through the application of good legislation and the amending of legislation at the appropriate time helps us to recognize that responsibility is increasing as the years go on.

With those few comments regarding the concerns that have been expressed to me by various people and the comments that were made by my friend to the left regarding their proposed amendment, I would say we are in support of this bill in principle.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I endorse this legislation, but I regret the time delay that has resulted in its not being passed earlier.

I am sure many members of the Legislature received an elaborate lobby -- at least those of us in the rural communities received some elaborate lobby -- from people who are involved in what I consider to be a very legitimate activity; that is, coon hunting and the training of coon-hunting dogs. One of my constituents favoured me with an item of correspondence dated March 18, 1980, with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson), indicating that the government was aware at that time of difficulties in this legislation which would cause some tremendous difficulties for these people.

During the course of the previous session, I indicated to the minister, who unfortunately is not here today, that I thought this was a particular problem. We had a series of correspondence. It is not a particularly complicated matter, but here we are well into October now, some many months later, and this problem still remains. I know I cannot fault the parliamentary assistant because I know the role of the parliamentary assistant in that particular ministry. As well, I am very well aware of the role of the parliamentary assistant in this political process and especially in the government of the day at least.

I must say, very briefly, that I think the difficulties the people in this very legitimate sport have experienced will not be looked upon favourably by those people when the next election comes. This is a thing that could have been straightened out with very little difficulty whatsoever. I am somewhat disappointed we have taken the length of time we have to see what is primarily a very simple matter corrected.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 59 and to endorse the general principles of the bill, and to join my colleagues in complimenting the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) for his contribution to this bill.

The only specific section I have any comment on is section 30, dealing with the training of dogs, and it has been mentioned by many people. Having owned a beagle at one time and being an upland game hunter myself, specifically for rabbit, I just want to point out that beagles do not take the rabbits. A good beagle will circle the rabbit out and bring it back to the hunter. So in this connection I think these people have a legitimate right to ask for the right to train their dogs without any harm to the game.

Much mention has been made of hunting in the north; I certainly do not want to take away from that in any way, but I want to point out that hunting and fishing are also very active pursuits in southern Ontario, particularly at Rondeau Bay in my riding of Kent-Elgin. Rondeau Bay was until very recently one of the most prolific fishing areas in the world. I remember going south to Florida, to the St. Johns River, which is supposed to be the world capital of bass fishing. Talking to a fellow fisherman there, I asked him where the best place was to fish for bass. He said, “It is in Rondeau Bay,” that is, only five or six miles from where I live. That used to be the case, but it no longer is.

The bill is very good in managing hunters and seeing that the fish are not overfished, but it seems to neglect the area of looking after the fish and game stocks. In Rondeau Bay, for a reason no one seems to know, we have lost the flora, there, the milfoil in particular, and the bulrushes where the bass fish spawn and hide and proliferate. There seem to be very few research dollars to go into this, to try and find out the reason. It has been mentioned that perhaps it is due to pesticides. The Ministry of the Environment has been doing some work there, and they say it is not pesticides. The only possible explanation they seem to come up with has to do with colder winters.

My own fishing in Rondeau Bay has changed from fishing in the open waters with a worm, casting with a worm or casting with a lure to going into the areas of the bulrushes. The reason for the change is there are no fish out in the open water any more. We find the only way we can catch one now is to go into the bulrushes with a different type of lure. It is a system that originated in the southern United States. I do not know the derivation of the word, but they call it dappling. This particular type of lure will go in among the bulrushes and will not snag, and it seems to be successful in bringing forth the odd bass.

Even though that method is successful, it points out the fact that the bass are retreating further and further into the natural habitat, their numbers are growing less and the people who make their living -- and there are a great many people who formerly made their living on Rondeau Bay guiding and putting on meals and accommodation and cabins and so on -- are finding it more difficult to earn a living.

My plea is that more money needs to be put into these areas. The fishermen tell me they are willing to support a resident fishing licence, provided the extra money raised by that route is used for fish and game management. They exclude children or young people under 16 years of age and people over 65, but they do support the idea of a resident fee for people within the age bracket of 16 to 65, provided that money is used in game management.

I realize that money that goes into the consolidated revenue fund cannot be earmarked to be used in a certain way. Nevertheless, I think a commitment from the ministry and the parliamentary assistant that roughly the same amount of money that is raised would be used in these areas would be satisfactory for these people.

I would also mention that in our Blenheim-Cedar Springs area up until four years ago we had quite a nice population of bobwhite quail. I don’t think it has ever reached the position perhaps where it would stand any hunting pressure, but on my particular farm, while out hunting rabbits in the winter, it would be common enough to put up a covey of 30 or 40 bobwhite quail. Regardless of whether or not one would want to hunt them, they certainly are a beautiful bird to see and they are a beautiful bird to listen to, especially in the spring of the year when they are calling to one another. Since the storm of March 1, 1978, we just haven’t seen any bobwhite quail. It would seem to me that a restocking program, based upon the fact that they were wiped out by a storm, not by other environment conditions, would be a successful program.

We would urge that more be done in the way of managing this crop. I realize we would never get enough birds or animals to satisfy all of the hunters because, as birds or animals became more plentiful, there would simply be a corresponding increase in the number of hunters. Nevertheless, like any crop, as food crops are grown by farmers, I believe that our game should be managed by our Ministry of Natural Resources and that the best use of the environment and the support that we have there in the natural environment should be exercised.

I have one comment to make about moose hunting which was brought to me by a hunter friend of mine. While I can generally support the aims of the ministry to try to decrease the pressure on the moose and build up the stock, there is a certain question about the method of pairing hunters to one animal. It does bring up the question of when, on the first day of hunting, perhaps two people in a party of six shoot their moose. They tag the moose with their two names and then the four people are left to hunt moose.

That brings up the question of what happens to those two who have already got their animal. They are going to be confined to the camp with little to do, and the whole thrill and purpose of coming on the hunting trip has sort of been lost. I would suggest increasing the number of people to each animal taken as an alternative to the method of trying to control the number of moose that are taken. Not being a moose hunter myself, I certainly do not wish to appear as an expert in that field. I am simply passing on a comment that was made to me by a person who is an avid moose hunter.

With those few remarks, I commend the ministry for this act and will look forward to the committee stage.

Mr. Isaacs: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and participate in this debate and to commend the government for bringing the bill forward.

On second reading debate, we are discussing the principle behind this bill and, like the previous speaker, it concerns me a little that the bill is negative in its approach to problems. While I recognize that hunting, fishing and trapping have to be regulated in this province, there is very little we can take comfort in though the government taking a positive approach to hunting and fishing for the people of Ontario and for those who choose to visit Ontario from other jurisdictions.

When you are discussing game and fish management in Ontario, it is important to establish the guidelines under which the provincial government is working. I think we all accept that the provincial government has a legitimate role in wildlife management and in the stocking of our fisheries. No one is suggesting, at least to my knowledge, that wildlife management should be privatized, and thank goodness for that. But we are not seeing sufficient action from this government in terms of providing the recreational facilities through proper management of our wildlife resources and through proper management of our fish stocks. Unfortunately, this bill is going nowhere towards providing those recreational facilities and those stocks that are so desperately needed.

Like the previous speaker, I would urge upon the government a new approach to the problems that we face in these areas. If the government wants to direct its attention to the things that are being done in many European jurisdictions, both in terms of the stocking of fisheries and, perhaps more important, in terms of game management, I think the government will find that a lot of north European countries in particular are taking a much more positive approach towards building herds than we are doing in Ontario. I hope the government will take that to heart and come forward with some positive programs that deal with these very important issues.

Like the previous speaker as well, I have had concerns raised with me about moose management and about the control of the moose hunt in Ontario. There is no doubt that problems have arisen. There is no doubt that short-term controls are needed. But I think it’s wrong for the government to pin all its hopes on very restrictive controls on hunters -- controls that do not even seem to be fair, either to our Ontario resident hunters or to those who come from the United States.

Unless we get a positive program put in place to increase moose stocks, and to go back to a situation where there are sufficient moose so that there can be fewer restrictions than there are at the moment, then we are going to see a further decline. Restrictions by themselves are not enough. We need positive steps to build up moose herds. I hope the government takes that to heart.

I want to deal, perhaps at slightly greater length, with the whole matter of training. I commend the government for including in this bill the provisions my colleague the member for Etobicoke persuaded the House and the government were of such value a few months ago. The restriction on leghold traps is of immense value and is an immense step forward.

There is no doubt, however, as the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. Reed) indicated a few minutes ago, that there are problems in the way of control of wildlife by farmers in this province. Since my colleague’s bill became law, a number of farmers have approached me to discuss these problems and to seek positive solutions. Muskrats and other aquatic or semi-aquatic animals are a problem for farmers in a lot of the areas of this province, particularly those areas that surround urban communities.

In ridings such as mine, which is the suburban and rural fringes of the Hamilton metropolis, or in the areas that surround Metropolitan Toronto, or in the Ottawa or Windsor area, the problems are the same. The natural predators have gone and farmers feel very restricted in the methods they can use to deal with vermin.

The difficulty is that they are asking essentially for one law for farmers and one law for everyone else. Unfortunately, there is no longer a definition of farmer that is common across Ontario. While my colleague from Halton-Burlington has suggested that farmers perhaps need the right to trap in an unrestricted manner on their property, I suggest we cannot go forward with that kind of legislation because not all farmers are family farmers who have learned these things from their fathers and from their fathers before them. More and more of our farmers are tenants; more and more of our farmers are corporations; more and more of our so-called farmers are land owners who do not farm the land themselves but who are engaged in some way in the production of crops or livestock on that land.

We cannot write into legislation that farmers should be exempted from provisions for humane trapping which are important because of our basic humanity. If it is necessary that there should be humane trapping in Ontario, as I suggest it is, then it is necessary that that requirement should be imposed uniformly across the province.

If our farmers are having problems, as indeed they are, then rather than permitting them to use leghold traps on an unrestricted basis, we should be finding the mechanisms by which they can control the problem.

I recognize that those who are engaged in professional trapping are a class apart. They are licensed and they are permitted to continue, as they have been and as I hope they always will be. But farmers in southern Ontario are not generally licensed trappers. They are generally not trapping for the sake of gathering pelts but are trapping for the sake of removing an excess population of problem animals from their property.

They should not be exempted from the requirements of humane trapping on their land because, even if they are, the adjacent land may be vacant, may not be farmed or may be owned by a developer and will still be a breeding ground for the vermin that are causing the problem for the farmers.

What we have to do, and where the government should be directing its attention, is to put priority on the development of methods that will ensure that excess rodents can be dealt with by licensed exterminators and in many cases by the farmers themselves in a humane manner and in a manner that ensures there will be no danger to those who enter upon the farm land or to those who might come in contact with a trap that has drifted free from its original setting place.

In that regard, I am sure the parliamentary assistant and certainly the minister will recall the incident of the leghold trap that was found floating essentially freely but, nevertheless, set in the Red hill Creek within the urban limits of the city of Hamilton. Those kinds of things should not be allowed to happen. We should not have traps set by unlicensed persons. That one was set by an unlicensed person, because there are no licensed persons operating trap lines within the city of Hamilton. We should not have traps set by unlicensed persons that can cause a hazard to human beings or to domestic pets.

We should be giving this a priority. Instead of trying to write laws that deal with every possible circumstance, we in this Legislature should be saying to ourselves there is a problem facing farmers today in that animals, particularly muskrats, are becoming a very serious problem on farm land adjacent to urban areas. We should be finding positive mechanisms by which that problem can be dealt with. The problem of those excess numbers, sometimes staggering numbers of muskrats, is not a problem that is caused by the farmer. It is caused by the urban development and everything that is going on in the area.

I understand the farmers’ frustration and I share that frustration, but the problem is not solved by allowing completely unrestricted trapping using any kind of trap that the farmer might come up with or might have had around for years. It is not solved by allowing that kind of thing on farms in those suburban and urban fringe areas. It is solved by coming to grips with the problem of excess vermin.

I hope the government will give that some attention, and I hope it will give it some positive attention. We might even need some special programs to deal with the menace that is created to our farmers. Unlike the member for Halton-Burlington, who I think was suggesting that we deal with it by allowing unrestricted trapping by the farmer on his own farm, I suggest we still need the restrictions for some kind of humanity and some kind of security for domestic pets and human beings. We need that security, even on farm land, and the problem needs to be addressed by the government in a much more positive way to ensure that the problem is removed so that these animals, which are multiplying in an uncontrolled manner, do not continue to bother farmers as they are now doing and have done during the decades of urban growth we have seen in this province.

I commend the government for the bill, but I still feel it is a little too negative. What we need are more positive programs, both in the game management, in the fish stocking and in the protection for our farmers from excess numbers of what I can only describe as vermin. Those programs would be a help to citizens of Ontario, rather than just being more restriction and more government red tape.

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this bill for a minute. I am pleased that the government has allowed the coon hunters to legally train their dogs outside of the season for coons, but I also feel there are some parts that are missing in this bill. One is, as several other members have mentioned, the fishing licences that could be brought forward to allow more money to be put into the area of restocking fish, if this money was used for that purpose.

We could have something in legislation to not allow the fish population to deteriorate below certain levels without having it brought back by restocking. The government has not exactly been co-operative with associations like the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and the Sydenham Sportsmen’s Association, who are trying to determine the extent of the deterioration of the fish population, how to restore it, and how to get back the population we had at one time. Of course, some of the problem is overflshing, not all by sport fishermen, but by commercial fishing.

I understand it is the Ministry of Natural Resources’ policy to give only yearly poundage figures for commercial fishermen, which really is not of much value if we are trying to determine where the fish are caught and at what time of year. If these figures were available monthly and were given for each commercial fisherman, and included where the fish were caught, we could determine if these fish were being caught near the planting area. The ministry could determine the movement of these fish so they could stop some of these splake being taken by the commercial fishermen. Supposedly the commercial fisherman is not out there fishing for splake; he’s out there fishing for something else. But if he catches splake, he’s allowed to keep them.

I would request that the government bring forward these commercial fishermen’s poundage figures monthly, rather than annually. In this way we could maybe determine how much splake is being caught in what area and thereby either place the fish in another area or steer the fishermen away from certain areas where the splake are.

With those few comments, I want to support this bill.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, this is a very detailed bill, and it is certainly time that we did update our legislation protecting our fish and game. But we all realize that in so doing there are a number of conflicting interests, and it is our job to balance off the concerns of various groups of people in order to get legislation that will protect our game and fish and the interests of the different groups concerned.

There are the hunters and anglers, who have one concern: to have good recreational opportunities. There are the farmers, who are concerned with the damage that wildlife can do to their crops. There are the native peoples, who have certain aboriginal rights to hunt and fish, and whose rights must be protected. There are the people concerned with the preservation of wildlife and its role in our ecology. And, of course, there are the people concerned with the humane trapping of animals.

I would like the minister or his assistant to assure us that all those interests are adequately protected by this legislation. Particularly, I am concerned about endangered species. I hope the legislation is adequate to protect those species and that the regulatory power will be used where a species does appear to be seriously endangered.

As the member for Beaches-Woodbine, my main concern with wildlife is chasing raccoons out of the chimneys and attics of my constituents’ houses or assisting them to chase them out. But I think the people in my area do welcome the humane trapping legislation, which was instigated by my colleague the member for Etobicoke and which has become part of this bill. I am very glad to see that it has become part of this bill.

I do not think it goes far enough, because there are certain exceptions to it, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. It does give the government power under the regulation to define what is humane trapping and to educate people, particularly trappers and farmers, who are allowed to use traps under certain circumstances, in the best methods of humane trapping. I welcome that part of the bill.

I also welcome the increase in fines in the bill. I think we have to get serious about protecting our wildlife and our game and fish generally and about developing them as a resource for general recreational purposes and for our tourist industry.

I am pleased to support the bill as far as it goes, but I hope that in committee we will make changes to tighten up some of the points that have been raised. In particular, I hope the government will consider the two recommendations which the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters have proposed and sent to all members of the Legislature; that is, regarding the status of guides hired to search for game with their clients, and regarding the addition of areas inhabited by moose and bear to section 29(1).

There are other concerns that have been expressed by my colleagues, and we will be waiting to see whether the government brings in some amendments on those topics; if not, we will be considering some amendments of our own.

I will be supporting the bill on second reading.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the honourable member for Port Arthur take more than a minute and a half?

Mr. Foulds: I will take more than a minute and a half, Mr. Speaker.

On motion by Mr. Foulds, the debate was adjourned.

The House recessed at 6:02 p.m.