Hansard Transcripts 1984-Apr-18 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware that the Canada Health Act received royal assent in Ottawa yesterday with the support of all parties there.

The day of reckoning has arrived for this government and for this minister. I want to put a simple question to this minister. Is he going to follow the spirit and the law of the Canada Health Act, or is he going to subject the people of this province to at least a $50-million penalty by his failure to comply with that law?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, that is a strange question, I should think, from the Leader of the Opposition. Obviously, this government will be complying with the law of the land. The specific ways in which we will adapt in order to do so will be announced in due course.

He says the day of reckoning has come. The bill has been passed and is now law, but the operative provisions of it do not all come into effect at the moment. It would be folly on our part, it seems to me, to react at this stage without very careful examination of all of the ramifications of the legislation and very careful assessment of the implications of a variety of courses of action that may be open to us.

Mr. Peterson: I want to ask a simple question. Rather than trying to figure out ways to get around it, is the minister prepared now to respect the spirit and the letter of that law by banning extra billing and user fees in this province so that we are not subjected to a $50-million penalty?

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the Leader of the Opposition had the opportunity to evaluate all the implications of that legislation carefully, he would understand it is not simply a matter of banning or not banning extra billing within this jurisdiction. He would perhaps understand that the complexity of either of those courses of action would require some assessment of the implications throughout the system and the impact upon the citizens of this province. It is precisely that course of action we propose to follow; that is, we are going to look very carefully at all the implications of a whole host of approaches that may be open to us.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health knows that is absolute gobbledegook. He has had months to come up with basic answers to the questions. Is he going to outlaw extra billing in Ontario or not? Is he going to increase user fees or not? Is he going to introduce fees for chronic copayment or not? Is he going to reduce OHIP premiums or not?

The people of this province are entitled to know the answers to those basic questions. Why is the minister not prepared to answer them today? He has had months literally to come before this House with a conclusion as to what is going to happen.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, once again, if the leader of the third party had closely followed the development and evolution of this legislation in its rather arduous course through the House of Commons and ultimately to the Senate --

Mr. Rae: Yes, it was really arduous. It had unanimous consent from day one.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the member had watched the development of the legislation, he would understand it has undergone some very significant changes in evolving over the time it was before the parliamentarians of this country.

Unlike certain parties on the other side of this Legislature which are given to knee-jerk reactions, we tend to take a more deliberative approach to making decisions which are clearly in the best interests of the citizens of this province.

In response to the preamble to the question, we have indicated consistently throughout that we have no plans whatsoever to introduce user fees. We do not have user fees attached to any insurable services in the province and it is not part of our contemplation to do so at the moment.

As to the matter of premiums, although they are not exclusively within the jurisdiction of my ministry, the federal government, in developing this legislation, recognized that was clearly within the jurisdiction of the province. It is not my expectation that will be changed.

Mr. Peterson: We have listened to the minister's twisted reasoning for months. We have seen him put his arguments and we have seen them fail. We have seen the influence of the Ontario Medical Association on the policymaking of the province. Now the crunch has come.

Is the minister prepared to bring in legislation now to ban extra billing and user fees in this province? He cannot go on equivocating forever. Will he do it?

Mr. McClellan: It is a safety valve.

Mr. Rae: What happened to the safety valve?

Mr. Martel: It blew.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think it just blew over there.

Mr. Roy: You are not looking at polls.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am pleased and flattered that the Leader of the Opposition has been listening to me so carefully for the last many months, as he said. I do not recall he has raised the question in the Legislature previously, when he might have had an opportunity on those many occasions when I sat here and waited for questions from the opposition and did not receive them. Suddenly he has now been listening to what I have been saying for all these months, and it obviously was not in response to an interest he had expressed in the subject.

The Leader of the Opposition can be assured the ultimate decision by this government with respect to its response to and compliance with the federal legislation will be one that reflects the characteristic sensitivity of this government to the needs and interests of all the people of this province.

Mr. Peterson: If the minister were not so hysterical and emotional about this, his memory would be better, but I will leave that for just a moment.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. He will be aware that we started a discussion a few days ago with his colleague the Premier (Mr. Davis) with respect to the pension fund borrowings of this province and the dilemma he faces as the Treasurer preparing the new budget. He will be aware that the province of Ontario owes some $25 billion.

I will keep talking while he checks notes. He can tell me when he is ready for the question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am always ready for the member's questions. I am getting prepared for the next one.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer will be aware, too, because of the studies he has looked at, that the Ontario Economic Council study said Ontario is so successful in laying off its debts in slush funds that more than 130 per cent of the net debt of the province is held by the Canada pension plan and the big five public sector plans. The slush funds they refer to are the ones the Treasurer and his predecessors created.

What impact is that going to have on the taxation of this province as the Treasurer now starts the process of repaying those pension funds, as he now starts paying for the Davis deficits and for the sins of his predecessors?

Hon. Mr. Davis: And you people were always urging us to spend more.

Mr. Bradley: Not on Suncor, not on land banking and not on a jet.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I had been hoping the member might try this question again. Let us sort of begin with where we are spending the money, so we will all understand the deficit. Provincial health spending --

Mr. Peterson: This has nothing to do with

spending; it has to do with borrowing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will answer the question. I did not tell you how to ask it. Do not tell me how to answer it --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- though he could use some advice on how to ask questions.

Let us start with the source of the major expenditures. As the member knows very well, health costs were $8 billion this year and low-income support was another $2.5 billion. Those two alone amount to $10.5 billion of the $24 billion this government will spend this year.

Mr. Nixon: And $80 million for Doctors' Hospital.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have been watching pretty carefully as the member chats around the province. He and his colleagues are telling school boards and municipalities that their portions, which amount to several billion dollars, are also too low. Let us just get some perspective on where the spending is and where deficits emanate from.

In point of fact, if the member will have a look, he will realize that if it were not for the burgeoning health care costs, all other areas of the government would be running a significant surplus. So it is in fact because of health spending we have these kinds of deficits.

Let us talk about CPP borrowings. I know the member has been saying fairly often --

Mr. Sargent: In 13 years the government has never had a balanced budget -- not once.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is he also supporting John Turner, who ran up the biggest deficits in Canada?

I know the member has been saying pretty carelessly and pretty clearly we are not going to be able to meet our CPP obligations. I wonder if he has checked. As he begins his supplementary, he will probably want to begin by noting how much debt we are retiring this year to other sources, because I know he does not have a clue what we are spending to retire debt this year. Before he holds up the spectre that when that debt is being retired to CPP three or four years from today we will not be able to retire it, as the member chats around the province trying to scare our senior citizens, I want him to add one thing to that scare tactic.

He should tell them we are spending at about the same level to retire debt as we will be when that debt is retired to CPP. In other words, at the same time as the member suggests we will not have the capacity to retire CPP obligations, I want him to be aware that this year we are retiring as much in debt obligations as we will be three years from today when we will be paying it to CPP--

Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member did not have that information. He was not aware we were retiring any debt this year.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is important information.

Mr. Peterson: I refer the Treasurer to another part of the study from the economic council that says the provinces can repay the CPP debt only with increased taxes or new borrowing. I am not asking about the government's spending priorities. We all agree they are completely skewed and fouled up. To stand in this House and justify Suncor, the government's land banks, its advertising, Minaki Lodge and all that other nonsense --

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Peterson: -- is even beyond the Treasurer. If he wants a speech on the government's spending practices, he will get it. I am asking him about borrowing. As he knows, he and his predecessors have been forced to borrow a great deal of money for the foolishness of some of their spending, not spending in the right places. My question is a very simple one. By how much is the government going to raise taxes in order to repay the $25 billion it owes the pension fund?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As some measure, the member should keep in mind that the amount it will take to retire our obligations to the Canada pension plan will be about the same as it took this year to retire other obligations. The spectre the member wishes to hold up, that there will enormous tax increases to pay off a debt falling due three years from today, is just that -- smoke and mirrors and a spectre he is using to scare people. It has nothing to do with reality. This year, with current tax loads, which remain quite competitive across Canada, we are able to retire the same amount of debt. That is a problem for the member, is it not?

Mr. Peterson: If we have the Treasurer's solemn promise that the government is not going to raise taxes to retire that debt, that means it is going to have to borrow --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I refer him to that great financial expert, the Premier, who said one of two things would happen. We are either going to borrow or raise taxes.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: That is what he said. Now he gives the Treasurer the instructions --

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I didn't say that. Don't ever quote me about taxes.

Mr. Peterson: That is what he said. We all heard it.

How much is the government going to borrow to roll over that debt? From what source will it get it? Is it going to go to private capital markets? What is that going to do for interest rates, recognizing, as the Treasurer already knows, that 70 per cent of the capital markets of this country are now occupied by government?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am glad I coaxed the member into asking a final supplementary. The final thing I want to add is that all the Canada pension plan borrowing that has been undertaken was not undertaken because we could not find other sources to borrow from. As I hope the members know, it was pursuant to the arrangement set up when CPP was organized in the mid-1960s by all 11 governments in this country.

All governments agreed that the moneys paid into CPP would be available to those same people through loans made back to the provinces, back to the government. For him to suggest to anyone that we are gobbling up CPP moneys which we were not intended to have is a great fraud for him to put out. It is exactly and precisely in accordance with the intended CPP arrangements, supported by all governments, including the federal government. It is exactly what was intended. We have not borrowed any more than we are allowed to.

2:20 p.m.

It was set up to ensure the provinces would be able to meet their obligations to accomplish that. We will be able to meet our obligation. There is not the slightest indication, not from the people who lend us money in the private market, the public markets, the credit rating agencies, nor anyone, that any province in this country, let alone Ontario, which has a triple-A credit rating, will not be able to meet its obligations to the Canada pension plan or anything else.

I repeat, the CPP borrowing is what it was anticipated to be when it was set up. It has met all the requirements. It is entirely in order. It is consistent and predictable, as set out when the CPP was organized. It has not been tapped unexpectedly to do anything but finance services to current taxpayers who are paying into their own pensions. They have asked that their money, instead of being lost to them, be available through CPP to finance current services.

HYDRO EXPANSION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister sent a letter dated April 16 to the chairman of the Ontario Energy Board. Once again, in his letter of transmittal concerning Ontario Hydro rates, the minister explicitly excluded the system expansion program from the review of the energy board.

In the light of the fact that the percentage of interest in foreign exchange needed for Hydro's revenue requirements will jump from 26 per cent in 1984 to 35 per cent in 1985, an enormous jump, how can the minister possibly exclude from the energy board the very items that are causing the increase? How can he possibly justify not giving the energy board the ability to deal with capital expansion, interest borrowing and so forth when that is what is causing the increases?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Ontario Energy Board to review the Ontario Hydro rate proposal. It might be useful at this time to correct the record. One news report noted that the Minister of Energy will be recommending that rate to the energy board. That is not the case. I have asked the energy board to review the rate request and have stipulated in my letter that the system expansion program as it bears on the 1985 rate will be the subject of the board's consideration.

Mr. Rae: I want to quote the doubletalk that comes out of the minister's mouth. In his own letter to the energy board, he says, "As in previous years, the board shall review and report on the impact of the system expansion program on the proposed rates; however, the system expansion program is excluded from this review."

Average hydro customers were paying for interest rates and foreign exchange costs on their hydro bills until April 4. Everything we paid from January 1 to April 4 this year went to interest and foreign exchange payments. The minister is saying that aspect, system expansion, is excluded from the review.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: How can the minister possibly justify excluding from the review the very matters that now most concern the customers of Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I think I answered that question previously. The system expansion program as it bears on the 1985 rate, as it bore on the 1984 and the 1983 rates, was the subject of consideration by the energy board.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, why does the minister set himself up as an apologist for Ontario Hydro when he does not have the power to do anything when it comes to Hydro because of the Power Corporation Act?

Does it not seem a reasonable suggestion to have Hydro's capital expansion program reviewed when Hydro has indicated it plans to borrow $64 billion over the next 20 years? Why does the minister not do something about the fact that he is totally impotent when it comes to Ontario Hydro? Why does he not review the Power Corporation Act and get some teeth into what he is doing instead of setting himself up as some sort of apologist?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I do not recognize that I am an apologist for Ontario Hydro. Hydro will account for itself at the energy board hearings and in any other public review process, including the estimates of my ministry and the standing committee on public accounts. The information the board requests in relation to the rate will be on the public record at those hearings.

Mr. Rae: If you use only utilities and your annual electricity bill is $396, you will be paying $103 for Ontario Hydro's interest payments and foreign exchange costs; that is $103 out of $396. If you are using hydro for heating as well and have an average bill of $1,256, you will be paying $327 out of that $1,256 on interest payments and foreign exchange payments alone.

Given the extent of Hydro's debt and the impact of that debt and of the interest payments on the average consumer, which board is reviewing the system expansion, the capital expansion, the need for borrowing and the way in which borrowing is happening? What protection do consumers have in this province? If they cannot go to the Ontario Energy Board, where can they go to get some protection from the impact of these increasing costs?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The leader of the third party is trying to heighten people's apprehension with respect to the rates and the impact the system expansion program has on the rates. He is probably delving in tactics similar to those of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) in his previous question to the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman).

I can only remind him again, as I have on two separate occasions during this question period, that the subject of the system expansion program as it relates to the rate for 1985 will be reviewed by the Ontario Energy Board.

Mr. Rae: It does not have the power to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. When I caught his eye a moment ago, he put up two fingers, not one. I take it from that he is going to be back in two minutes, so I will stand the question down and hope he comes back.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the Premier had to leave for the opening of the new burns unit at Wellesley Hospital. He had to meet the Lieutenant Governor. It is not likely he will be back before question period is over.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, in that case I will have to ask the question of the Deputy Premier, because it involves a matter of the fundamental policy of the government of this province.

I have in my hand a copy of a letter from Mr. Allan Gregg, the president of Decima Research. The letter is dated March 16, 1984. It is addressed to an employer, and it is part of an overall questionnaire directed to the employers of the province with regard to the role and policies of the Workers' Compensation Board.

The letter says, "This study will provide the board with the necessary tools to meet the demands emanating from one of their key partners in the work force, the employers."

The questions not only involve matters of the relationship between employers and the board but also relate directly to the government's white paper, to the issues involving the rates of compensation and to the question of what kinds of payments are going to be made to injured workers.

I would like to ask the Deputy Premier why this kind of study is being conducted and whether a similar study is being conducted of the views of injured workers -- those who are in need and those who have rights under the Workers' Compensation Act, not just employers -- and whether he is prepared to make the results of this survey public prior to the government bringing in any legislation with respect to workers' compensation.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that I am not familiar with the correspondence to which the honourable member makes reference or the relationship between that company and the recipient of that letter, so I cannot add anything by way of response to the letter.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Rae: The fact of the matter is that the Workers' Compensation Board has hired the Tories' own polling firm, Decima Research, to conduct a poll of employers in this province with respect to legislation that affects the rights of workers in this province. There is a fundamental matter of policy involved. Are the workers and the people of this province going to know the results of this survey before the government brings down its legislation?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The leader of the third party has assumed that the services in question have been retained by the Workers' Compensation Board. All I can suggest is that if he has some specific questions in relation to that, they should be directed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) when he is next in his place.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, there is no question but that the survey was commissioned by the Workers' Compensation Board; it states that in the covering letter to the employers. That is not even debatable.

I want to ask the Deputy Premier, and perhaps he can ask the Minister of Labour or the Premier himself, what in the world this government commissioned Professor Weiler for, why it put out its own white paper and why we had a standing committee of this Legislature debating these very questions. All three parties worked very hard in that committee in trying to come up with a final report on Reshaping Workers' Compensation for Ontario. As a member of that committee, I must say I feel insulted by the actions of the Workers' Compensation Board.

I do not know whether the government knew the board was going to do that at the time. I would like to know that. I would also like to know whether the Deputy Premier thinks this is the way in which the Minister of Labour is weaselling out of his own responsibilities and out of bringing in legislation to make things better for injured workers in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, let me just comment on the last little remark about the Minister of Labour weaselling out of anything. We have an outstanding Minister of Labour in this province, and I want that to be understood. He would be in his place this afternoon to respond to these questions and these allegations if it were not for some family problems that required his return to Sault Ste. Marie.

I told the main questioner that I cannot provide any information about who has commissioned the survey with respect to this matter. I will refer the matter to the Minister of Labour on his return, since there is some reference to the Workers' Compensation Board. I think that should be sufficient at the moment until such time as we have the benefit of factual information. But in getting it, let us not start attacking people personally about weaselling out of their responsibilities. The member for Sault Ste. Marie is doing a great job as Minister of Labour in this province.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) will not be in the House this afternoon? Perhaps the government House leader or someone else can advise me.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, he is going to be in.

Mr. Roy: Possibly I can stand my question down. I want to ask a question of the Attorney General.

DENISON MINES

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. I wish the press would listen to this question, because what is going on is scandalous but nobody seems to be doing anything about it.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Sargent: Denison Mines had the biggest profit in history this year. They were guaranteed a profit of $2 billion a year for the whole uranium contract. They also got a loan of $650 million, interest free. The interest-free factor is about $1 billion over the term of this contract.

By law, Ontario has the power to raise the annual acreage fee for mining leases on crown land -- we own the land -- to a level that would wipe out Denison's windfall profits over the whole deal. Denison currently pays the absurdly low fee of $5,000 a year for the right to mine this 2,874 acres of provincial land.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sargent: The Minister of Energy has the statutory power to do this, as mentioned a minute ago, whether or not he does it.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Sargent: He has the power to terminate Denison's mining leases, most of which come up for renewal in 1986. How can Ontario Hydro -- Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: You lose all the -- the members should not bother me.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Mr. Sargent: How can Hydro justify the vicious rate increases to our citizens when the minister will not move to change this scandalous agreement? The minister has the power to change it -- either the minister, the Premier or someone must have the power. The minister must have a guilty feeling when he cashes his paycheque if he is not doing something on this.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I have so many notes on the honourable member's question that I do not know where to start. I should probably redirect this question to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), given the fact that he is the one responsible for mining rights.

I want to say to the member that this has been the subject of some considerable debate, not only in this House but also in committees of the Legislature, most recently in the standing committee on public accounts when the member raised the issue and then did not see fit to participate in the debate.

The contracts have been confirmed. As they come up for renewal, no doubt Ontario Hydro will seek to discuss its future purchases of uranium from Denison in the best interests of both the electrical consumers of the province and the utility.

Mr. Sargent: The fact is that I could not be at the meeting, but the problem still stands.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Sargent: The price of this uranium at the mine head is $1 a pound. The world price is $30 a pound. We are paying $40 to $50 a pound. How long is this screwing of the public going to go on?

Is the minister going to do something about it or not? It is unbelievable that this can happen and that the minister is doing nothing about it. Either he does not care or the Premier does not care, so no one cares and the public is being screwed both ways.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I expect what the member is saying is that Hydro should abrogate existing contracts that have been confirmed not only by this Legislature but also by select committees of the Legislature. If the member is saying that, he should say so publicly.

AMATEUR HOCKEY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation.

Has the minister read the article by Lois Kalchman in yesterday's Toronto Star? It states:

"Fighting and match penalties in the Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League have increased by more than 20 per cent this season... Police have been called to at least 20 gamesâ¦ fighting penalties have risen from 621 last season to 752" this year. "'We have had 60 team officials ejected from games...'"

It must be obvious to the minister that despite the McMurtry study and the McPherson study, attitudes amongst coaches, parents and league officials have not changed much. What type of funding is the minister prepared to put in and how much clout is he prepared to use to bring about an umbrella group that will be responsible to oversee all hockey involving the youth of this province?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to this House and in particular to the member for Sudbury East over the last few weeks, I am as concerned as he is about the continuing roughness of amateur hockey in this province.

As the honourable member also knows, and as I have indicated, we have had ongoing negotiations, with the help of Mr. Syl Apps, to try to get some umbrella organization organized that would be acceptable to organized hockey, help the leagues to mitigate some of the roughness in the game, improve the refereeing and coaching, improve the accident rate and so on. We are in the midst of this.

I can only tell the member and all members of this House that I will not rest until such time as we have some kind of a mechanism that is going to bring about more control -- if one wants to use that word -- of the game than exists now.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Martel: The minister had advance knowledge that the committee was falling apart. Since 60 team officials were ejected in the MTHL alone and since 25 abuse-of-officials penalties have been noted, it must be obvious that those responsible for hockey and who are teaching youngsters have attitudes that have to change significantly if we expect youngsters to play the game they way it should be played.

Maybe the minister can answer a question which appeared in the Globe and Mail the day before yesterday. Can any official responsible for law and order explain why brawling, fighting or acts usually determined to be violations of the Criminal Code are found to be generally acceptable acts when they happen within the confines of an arena? What is the difference between attacking a person on the street with intent to injure him and attacking a person on the ice? Is it not time we prevented kids from becoming not only the victims but also the perpetrators of the crime?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: I can only repeat what I have said on a number of occasions recently and for the last several years. We are seeking a mechanism to bring about some of the objectives the member opposite wants and we want.

I can only say here today that I am very optimistic, far more optimistic than I have been even in the last few days or few weeks, that we are getting very close to bringing into place a mechanism; and whether it is a committee or whether it is something else I am not prepared to say here today. I am very optimistic we are going to put into place something that is going to help the organized hockey world to reach these objectives which the member wants and we over here want.

ADMISSIONS TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), in what might be considered an excess of disinformation considering his point of privilege at the beginning, which you decided was not privilege, suggested that Algonquin College was using a lottery for all admissions.

Algonquin College staff are very annoyed that anyone would suggest they used a lottery at all, and they tell me very clearly that they use random selection only after all of the other admission procedures have been applied.

The point is that Algonquin College has 150 programs. This is the list of those programs in which random selection is used. There are 19 programs in the skills training area, of which 12 are short programs sponsored by the federal government in which there are a few seats retained for fee-paying students.

Out of all of the other programs there is one program in applied arts in which the random selection is used, seven in health science and three in business. In all other programs the usual admission procedures are in fact carried out.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, during her answer to the member for Renfrew North the Minister of Colleges and Universities made a definite statement that there were no other community colleges in this province using what is commonly referred to as a lottery system. She calls it the random selection system.

Would the minister not agree with me that the funeral services program at Humber College, I believe it is -- she can correct me if I am wrong there -- does use the so-called lottery system to select students when it has eliminated all the other criteria?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member had been listening carefully he would have realized what I said was that in those courses in which there is a limited enrolment, random selection may be used as the very last resort in order to provide fair treatment for all equally qualified students; that is really what I said.

Whether Humber College is using random selection in that program this year I do not know, but I know it did not last year. If they are doing it this year, it must mean they have an abundance of equally qualified students for that program.

GRANGE COMMISSION INQUIRY

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a question of the Attorney General on the Grange commission. I understand he will not return, so I would like to direct my question to the Provincial Secretary for Justice.

Considering the recent Court of Appeal decision, and respecting some of the principles emphasized in the decision of the Court of Appeal, I would like to ask the minister to satisfy the concerns of many of my colleagues and of many people across Ontario about the terms of reference and the role of the Grange commission.

Can the minister assure us the Attorney General, through his counsel, is making representation before the commission to see to it there is a full and complete review of the facts surrounding the unfortunate deaths of the babies at the hospital, and second, that there is a full and complete disclosure as far as is possible of these facts to the -- Mr. Speaker, maybe I can repeat the question because I see the Attorney General has returned. I was asking the Attorney General's colleague a question about the role and the task of the Grange commission. Respecting the decision that has just been made by the Court of Appeal protecting and emphasizing the principle of presumption of innocence and the right against self-incrimination, can the Attorney General assure the people of Ontario that he is, through his counsel who is making representation at the commission, seeing to it there is not a curtailment of the role and the task of the commission so as to make it impossible for there to be a full and complete review of the facts surrounding the death of the babies at the hospital, or otherwise that there is complete disclosure as far as is possible of these facts to the parents and to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I entirely understand the honourable member's question. I am sure he shares my respect for the judgement of the Court of Appeal that was handed down last week, which in effect reiterated much of the statement I made to this Legislature many months ago in relation to the necessary parameters of the royal commission which must avoid reaching conclusions of civil or criminal liability.

The Court of Appeal pointed out the difficulty of that task, given the unprecedented nature of this royal commission. I think they outlined the proper safeguards that must be taken. My own counsel made representations to the Court of Appeal which may have encouraged it to reach the decision it did.

At this very moment Mr. Justice Grange, the commissioner, is hearing submissions from counsel in relation to their views about the effect of the Court of Appeal decision on the evidence that may still be introduced as we get towards the end of phase I and what impact this may have with respect to phase 2. I am sure the commissioner will reach a decision, on the one hand, that is going to assure a full disclosure of the events surrounding the tragic deaths that occurred at the Hospital for Sick Children, while at the same time recognizing the rights of the individuals who are giving evidence before the commission of inquiry.

Obviously, that is a difficult task. It is important to note that at least at this stage the public has had a pretty full accounting of the events that transpired, even though there may, of course, be some mystery yet remaining.

I am not really quite sure what direction the member expects or would like to see the royal commission to go, other than the manner in which Mr. Justice Grange is trying to decide right at this moment as to the extent of the impact of the Court of Appeal decision in relation to the evidence which is still to be heard with respect to phase 1, as well as phase 2.

Mr. Roy: I appreciate what the Attorney General is saying. All of my colleagues and the public of Ontario fully understand there has been complete disclosure so far. The Attorney General will also understand that following the comments of the commissioner, there seems to be some great doubt as to how the commission can proceed in eliciting evidence involving certain people.

The commissioner has said he may even be curtailed from looking at the role played by the police, the ministry, the crown attorney and so on.

2:50 p.m.

May I have the assurance of the Attorney General that there is still latitude to allow a review of the roles? Is that his position and that of his counsel, who at present is making submissions before the commission? Do they feel there is still full latitude for the commissioner and the commission to review fully the roles played by the police, the crown attorney and the ministry in this matter? These are some of the concerns we have.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have had several discussions with our counsel over the past 24 hours. I understand the commissioner right now is hearing arguments only in relation to phase I of the inquiry. I can assure the member our position will be that the commissioner should not be precluded by the Court of Appeal decision from proceeding with phase 2. That phase deals with these issues of accountability to which the member has just referred.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Attorney General could tell us something else. If he is not satisfied certain answers will be coming forward as a result of the discussions now taking place with respect to the conduct not only of phase I but also of phase 2, would he be prepared to amend the terms of reference of the inquiry?

The basic question for most Ontarians and others is how so many deaths could have occurred over such a long period of time without being reported to the public authorities. In that regard, is the Attorney General satisfied that question is going to be answered directly by Mr. Justice Grange's commission?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, certainly the latter part of the question is very fundamental to the role of the Grange inquiry. I am sure Mr. Justice Grange, acting as commissioner, obviously is doing everything humanly possible to obtain the answers to the questions the member has just posed. Obviously this is one of the very fundamental reasons for the establishment of the commission in the first place.

In so far as the possibility of amending the terms of reference is concerned, at this point it is entirely a hypothetical question. I do not think I can deal with that until we hear a final decision from Mr. Justice Grange as to how he intends to deal with the conclusion of phase I as well as phase 2. Until we have his views in that regard, it would be inappropriate for me to speculate as to what further might be done from our standpoint.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: In view of the importance of this matter and because it is the job of this government, I would like the Attorney General to tell the House --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, with all respect. We will have a new question please.

ALLOCATION OF HOUSING UNITS

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I hope the minister will recall an incident I pointed out to him in the House on December 14, 1983. Certain housing authorities, such as Metropolitan Toronto, Peterborough and Sault Ste. Marie, were refusing applications to families where the parent had only interim and not final custody of the children. At that time the minister replied, "I shall review the situation." The minister has not reported back to the House on this, nor has he had the courtesy to give me a written report.

Can he tell the House what he has done in the last four months to see that this apparent injustice has been corrected?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am of the belief that I did respond to the member's question. However, I will have to check my files. I was of the opinion that back in the month of January I had submitted a letter to the member answering the question raised at that time, but I will check again.

Mr. Philip: Since I did not receive the reply, maybe the minister will refresh his memory and inform the House and myself exactly what he did reply.

Does the minister not recognize the disgrace and injustice for a poor family in these circumstances? A family that happens to live in Peterborough or Toronto can be denied housing, even though it may be in the same economic situation as someone in a neighbouring community where the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority uses a more lenient or more just way of interpreting the Ontario Housing Corp. Manual of Administration.

What is this minister going to do to see that the Manual of Administration is applied in a uniform way, and that housing is granted on a basis of need and not on some kind of arbitrary interpretation of the guidelines by people such as those in charge of Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: One of the things I made clear during my estimates and during the fall sitting of this House was that we try to make sure that housing provided through the Ontario Housing Corp. is on the very basis the member is talking about, for the neediest first of those who apply.

We have established a point rating system. I am sure it is no secret there are some who would not agree with the entire way we establish the points, but it is a system that has been in place across the province and the housing authorities use it, I think rather extensively.

The area he speaks of gets back to the municipal nonprofits. I suppose one could even touch on the private nonprofits and the co-ops, because under the agreement they have with the federal government they have a responsibility to take a percentage of units off the waiting list as well.

Just this last week or 10 days ago, I was in some further discussions with some of the municipal nonprofits to have them come to the table to accept the offer I made last August to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which is to increase the percentage of rent-geared-to-income units from 25 to 35 per cent, plus five for physically and mentally handicapped people in those units, and to use a common waiting list with a common point-rating system as established by Ontario Housing Corp. so we would all have the same objective in life, whether it be in Peterborough, Sault Ste. Marie, Ottawa, Toronto or Metropolitan Toronto: that is, the person with the highest point rating would get the available unit first.

That has been part of the criteria I have tried to put in place in negotiating with two of the major municipal nonprofit housing groups. It is to get them on side so that we are all trying to achieve, through public support, giving units to the neediest first.

I appreciate the member's remarks. I hope he will try to indicate to some of the members of Cityhome here in Toronto that is the direction they should be going, not constantly saying they would like to take a different group of people into the housing they happen to provide through the auspices of the federal and provincial governments.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. An Indian band in my riding, namely the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, made a request about 16 months ago for an industrial training centre. They have approval from the Ontario Council of Regents, from Loyalist College and from the skills development committee, but it has not gone before cabinet yet nor got the green light from the ministry. Could the minister tell me why?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that application does not go before cabinet. It has been under discussion and it will probably go this month before the federal-provincial new employment expansion and development committee for the May 15 banking day. The proposal that was established was related to the establishment of a unit based on the skills growth fund, and that is the kind of direction in which those applications go. It is in process right now.

Mr. Pollock: There seems to be some confusion. Would the minister meet with these people before that May 15 deadline?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I will be glad to meet with them at any time. I have no compunction about doing that at all.

ADMISSIONS TO UNIVERSITIES

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. It concerns the implementation of the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions curriculum guidelines and the consequences for universities when four-year students, those who will be getting their full credits in four years, and those who will be taking what we call the grade 13 route at the present time arrive at university at the same time.

Could the Minister of Education reveal to the House how universities, which at the present time have to restrict their enrolment for a variety of reasons, some of them related to financing, are going to be able to cope with the problem of students coming in? It is referred to as a double cohort problem, students with their four-year certificates from high school arriving at the doors of the university at the same time as others with five-year certificates from high school. Is there not going to be an overflow of students? How are universities going to cope with that?

3 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, at the present time this matter is under discussion with representatives of the university community. The university community has dealt with circumstances such as this very effectively in the past and has done a very good job.

Although the honourable member will not recall this, because he was obviously an infant in arms at that time, at the end of the Second World War the enrolment at the universities in this province --

Mr. Breithaupt: We all were.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You were not.

The universities in this province coped with an increase in enrolment that was of the order in some instances of more than 50 per cent. The double cohort, if there is indeed a significant double cohort at that time, will not be of that magnitude at all.

The other factor that has to be examined as well is the absolute decline in the total numbers of students who will be graduating from either the four-year program or the five-year program at that time, which is the year 1988-89.

It is a matter that is under discussion and a matter for which I am sure the universities will be establishing appropriate programs in order to meet it effectively.

Mr. Bradley: Can the minister assure the House that when that day arrives, if she happens to be Minister of Education at that time -- but we are speculating only -- the government of Ontario will be prepared to provide the necessary additional funding to ensure that the doors will not be closed to qualified students in the province?

Can she reveal the reason that people in various universities in this province are extremely concerned about this possibility and about the lack of apparent leadership, I will call it, from her ministry in dealing with this problem? They say nothing is being done at the present time; she says consultations are going on. I prefer to believe them.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I know the member for wherever --

Mr. Speaker: St. Catharines.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: -- prefers to believe anybody else but the Minister of Education, and that is because he has overwhelming aspirations to assume this responsibility. I should just like to tell him it will really be a frosty Friday when that happens. He will probably be six feet under when he might have the opportunity.

The discussions related to this have been going on ever since we were in the process of responding to the secondary education review project document. Those discussions may not have involved the people to whom the member has been talking directly, but they certainly have involved other representatives of the university community.

It is a matter that is of concern to us and we are attempting to deal with it. I will make every commitment I possibly can make that there will be appropriate opportunity for all qualified students, as there is right now, in Ontario. It is my hope this will continue to be the case for a very long period of time, particularly a long period of time during which this party remains the government of Ontario.

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources with regard to the moose tag lottery. Can the minister explain why this year the ministry is requiring hunters to purchase their licences before the draw instead of submitting their names for the draw and, if they are successful in getting a moose or a cow tag, then purchasing their licences? What is the reason for that?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, it is because the hunters demanded that change.

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have an unusual petition I would like to present on behalf of some young folk. It reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition an expansion to the time period of the pages' stay at Queen's Park."

This petition is signed by 21 pages working for the government of Ontario and also for many honourable members of the House. I want to note some of the notables who have signed this petition supporting the pages: the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), members of the Liberal Party and members of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker, because of the shortness of time, I would hope you would take this matter into consideration immediately.

Mr. Speaker: I can assure the honourable member it will receive the most serious consideration immediately.

[Later]

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have been requested to ask, on behalf of the pages, if you have considered their petition.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I have considered it very seriously. Reluctantly, because we have others waiting patiently to come in, I must say we have to abide by the original terms and conditions.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition, which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned electors of Burlington, appeal to the Legislature to provide form and substance in law to the basic human right of parents in Ontario to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. The present education policy provides no guarantees for the existence of independent schools. They are one of the concrete expressions of this basic parental right.

"Furthermore, in a democratic and multicultural society, parents should have the right to send their children to schools of their choice without a financial penalty.

"We ask for your help in reducing the unfair burden of what in effect is double taxation. We seek a just public education policy that supports all schools deemed to be operating in the public interest."

MOTION

ESTIMATES TIMETABLE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, just before I make this motion, I would like to indicate, as honourable members will see, the time allocation for the estimates is now printed in Orders and Notices as required under standing order 45(b) and as has been agreed to by the House leaders.

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding any previous order of the House, the estimates as they are presented to the House be referred to the committees as indicated in the estimates statement tabled and printed today; that the supplementary estimates as they are tabled in the House be referred to the same committees to which the main estimates have been referred for consideration within the times already allocated to the main estimates, and that any order for concurrence in supplementary supply be included in the order for concurrence in supply for that ministry.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PRIVACY ACT

Mr. Philip moved, seconded by Mr. Cassidy, first reading of Bill 40, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, this act establishes the public right to access to recorded information held by government bodies, subject only to specific exemptions. It also controls the disclosure of personal information by government bodies and establishes the right of individuals to see and obtain corrections to personal information relating to them that is held by government bodies.

Refusal to give access to make corrections may be investigated and reviewed by the Ombudsman, who is also given the duty of investigating and reviewing the handling of recorded personal information by individuals and organizations in the private sector.

3:10 p.m.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 2 to 88, 118 to 146, 176 to 233, 235 and 262 to 274 in Orders and Notices and the response to a petition presented to the Legislature, sessional paper 58.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr. Laughren moved, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie, resolution 6:

That this House, recognizing that the province's forest lands require detailed classification, complete regeneration treatment after harvest and diligent tending of new growth, and further recognizing that these measures require a substantial financial commitment and a similar commitment of human resources in the field, requests the government to make a statutory commitment to sustained yield forest management to ensure that at least two trees are planted for every one harvested and that every acre harvested be regenerated.

Mr. Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation. He may reserve any portion of that time for the windup.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I shall attempt to leave a little time to wind up at the end unless I get carried away with my own eloquence, in which case I may run out of time.

This resolution is truly an inspired resolution. I would not want to claim I generated it or that it was my own inspiration to bring this resolution forward. The inspiration for this resolution came from none other than the Premier (Mr. Davis) when he issued his famous Brampton charter in 1977. Strangely enough, it was on the eve of the provincial election. I will speak more about that later.

During the last year or so, although previously to that too, this party made a very valiant effort to show its commitment to regenerating Ontario's forests. We did that in a number of ways. We appointed a task force of this caucus to attempt to learn more about our forests. We travelled widely in the province and we published a final report at the end of our work. On that task force I very much appreciated the assistance of a number of members of caucus, in particular the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Rae), who worked very hard and visited a lot of communities with the task force.

Also, during the last year we tried to make the regeneration of our forests an issue during the estimates debates, with questions during question periods and written questions in Orders and Notices and through a considerable amount of correspondence with the Ministry of Natural Resources. We have been trying consistently and persistently to make forestry an issue in the province.

I say "in the province" because it is not only a northern Ontario issue; it is a province-wide issue. Those who understand it know that six out of 10 jobs in forestry in this province are in southern, not northern, Ontario. That is why I regard forestry as an issue of province-wide importance. It is not an issue that must be considered only by northern members or ministers or even by the Ministry of Natural Resources. We believe the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) does not pay nearly enough attention to forestry. The Premier has never paid much attention to forestry as an issue in this province either. This makes it very difficult for any Minister of Natural Resources to have adequate clout in cabinet when it comes to making forestry a priority in Ontario. That is terribly important.

I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to the member for Lake Nipigon for the work he has done over the years in forestry. He has been the most persistent voice in this chamber on the need to regenerate our forests.

The government's response has been rather strange. I do not believe the minister did himself proud with his response of accusing this party of misleading people by the way we used information, despite the fact we received our information entirely from the Ministry of Natural Resources in the format we requested and in the format the Ministry of Natural Resources gave it to us, using the language the ministry has used for years. So I was not very pleased with the response of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope).

Not only that, in the midst of our task force deliberations, we were refused information that had previously been readily available to us. That is not a responsible response to what I would regard as the responsible role of an opposition party to raise these very important issues in this chamber and outside it.

The ministry has made some strides in the last couple of years. I am the first to admit that. For example, the commitment has been made to plant more trees. The figures I have obtained from the Ministry of Natural Resources -- and I hope it will not contradict its own figures again -- indicate it is going from planting 130 million seedlings in 1983 to 200 million by 1986. That is a major increase in the number of seedlings to be planted.

There is a commitment to put more money into forest management. This is where the public sector becomes involved. We have gone from $43 million for forest management in 1977-78 to $134 million in 1983-84. Those are annual figures and they are going up.

We on this side understand that the government is putting more money into forestry than it has in the past. We have never denied that. We know why. It is because the government has finally come to understand there is a problem and it simply must subsidize the private sector yet again to make sure we have regenerated forests for the generations to come.

I am the first to admit there is more going on now in forestry on the part of the government than there has been in the past; however, we cannot erase from our minds the problems of the past. We are worried that this minister is not as open as we think he should be when it comes to forestry. When we seek information, it is either promised and not delivered or it is refused. That has happened on more than one occasion. Reports are done within the ministry and they are not released, despite the fact they are paid for with public funds. They are reports that deal with a public resource on public land, but the minister will not release those reports.

In spite of all the money being spent now, we still have a secretive ministry and a minister with what I like to call a bunker mentality. That is why I had to look elsewhere than the ministry and the minister for my inspiration to bring forth this resolution.

I have with me today a copy of A Charter for Ontario. This is not an ordinary copy of the charter. This is a personally autographed one. It says, "Best wishes, Graham. Bill Davis." Graham is a very dedicated research person whose full name is Graham Murray. He works in our research group. He was kind enough to lend me this charter.

In item 7 the charter makes a commitment to replacing at least two trees for every one harvested henceforth in Ontario and to regenerating every acre harvested.

That is a copy of A Charter for Ontario, personally autographed by the Premier himself, William Grenville Davis.

3:20 p.m.

If the Premier had made that promise at any time other than on the eve of an election, it might have been an honest commitment. But we know now that certainly was not an honest commitment. The government has revoked that commitment since then. Instead of making that promise, he should have made a promise to make sustained yield a statutory requirement in Ontario. That is what should have been done, and not this kind of nonsense on the eve of an election.

The resolution we are debating today contains a number of important ingredients. First, it requires detailed classification of forest land. In our opinion, we should know more about our forest lands, what can grow on them, how to harvest them, the kind of machinery to be used, what tending is required, the best method of cutting (clear-cut or strip cutting), the best regeneration method (artificial or natural) and the most appropriate tending method.

At present there is inadequate classification of our forest lands in Ontario, and that is why it is included in this resolution. We see a tremendous opportunity for a northern Ontario forestry research centre to do much of this work. That was one of the final recommendations of our task force report.

The second important ingredient is that it requires complete regeneration treatment after harvesting and diligent tending of growth. That would be a result of our resolution. The forestry industry has always known how to cut trees, but it has been considerably less efficient at regenerating them. We believe there should he fewer clear-cuts and more strip cutting to allow for natural regeneration. We are alarmed at what we believe is out there in our second forest, and we do not believe the ministry knows very much about the second forest either.

Professional foresters from both the private sector and government expressed a number of concerns to us as we travelled across the province. Some of their major concerns were the tendency of less desirable species to take over from desirable species after the initial harvest, hardwood competition suppressing conifers and the increased number of balsam fir stands in the second forest because the more balsam fir there is, the greater the likelihood of a spruce budworm infestation.

They expressed concern over lower yields per acre the second time around except for the most productive of sites and said there was little evidence of reduced rotation periods except again on the most productive sites. They were also concerned about the absence of detailed knowledge of specific sites and said there was no noticeable commitment to increase the numbers of on-the-ground professional foresters and forest technicians.

They said there was an increased dependence on chemical suppression technologies at the expense of nonsilvicultural techniques. They were concerned about the shortage of money to support intensive forest management and the silviculture assessment system which provides an inflated estimate of how successfully we have generated areas previously cut.

Those were some of the major concerns the professional foresters expressed to us as we travelled across the province. We know it is a difficult task growing a merchantable second forest. We know the difficulty of growing one with a yield necessary to make harvesting economical and one with the desired species growing to maturity. I am sure that is terribly important.

We believe our forests must be more intensively cultivated, but we do not believe this should be done only by applying massive doses of herbicide sprays. We believe that with more careful site preparation and larger seedlings planted, the amount of spraying can be kept to a minimum. In other words, we believe the goal should be to spray as little as possible.

One reason our forests have not been properly regenerated is that we have not had an adequate number of foresters in the forests actually managing, planning, planting, tending and monitoring the second forest. The member for Lake Nipigon has spoken long and loudly about that over the years. That is a terribly important issue. We say it is time to move some of those foresters out into the trenches. They know what to do and how to do it. What is more, they care very much about our forests.

The third important part of this resolution is the commitment to make sustained yield a statutory requirement in Ontario. We must be absolutely certain that our laws prevent the mistakes of the past from happening in the future. We have seen the figures on regeneration; we have argued over them with the minister. We have seen the early figures for the areas covered by the forest management agreements, and we are not impressed by them either.

I must emphasize that we are at the mercy of the Ministry of Natural Resources when examining the regeneration numbers. We have no other source of province-wide data. If the ministry withholds or plays games with the numbers, there is little we can do. I remind the minister, however, that he and his former deputy have both made public statements about having an informed debate on forestry. Their deeds have not matched their words. I must say we get garbled messages.

Earlier this year, Mr. Ken Armson spoke to the Canadian Lumbermen's Association in Montreal. Mr. Ken Armson, as members may know, is Ontario's head forester. He had this to say:

"Ontario does not have a wood supply crisis, nor in fact is there a serious prospect that a supply crisis will emerge within the foreseeable future."

He went on to say: "The term 'wood supply' is a loosely defined term and a much misunderstood concept. It involves a host of physical, biological, social and economic factors. In Ontario, we prefer to talk in terms of 'available wood supply.' This refers to a modification of the physical or biological 'annual allowable cut' which has been reduced to account for expected depletions due to fire, insects and disease, areas and volumes which are deemed 'inoperable' due to extreme slope, low-volume acreage, excessive rock, etc."

Then Mr. Armson said:

"The conifer wood supply situation in the year 2000 is expected to be tight, with no room for expansion, but the situation is certainly manageable. Poplar and white birch will continue in large surplus well beyond the year 2000. Tolerant hardwoods are expected to continue in surplus well beyond 2000, but the present local shortages of high-quality logs will continually worsen."

On the one hand, the conifer wood supply will be tight, with no room for expansion, and local shortages of high-quality logs will continue, but on the other hand, we have no wood supply crisis. It is very strange. When I say we are getting garbled messages, that is exactly what I mean.

As though that were not enough of a contradiction, we have the government's own forest production policy -- of 1972, I might add -- which indicated the wood requirements would increase by about 50 per cent by the year 2020. In addition, the minister stated in November 1983 that the Ministry of Natural Resources was only at 63 per cent of its projected target on artificial regeneration.

We have no problem now or in the future, but we have no room for expansion, the conifer wood supply is tight, there is a shortage of quality sawlogs and, on top of all that, the official forest production policy is for a massive increase in wood requirements. That is an official policy of this government.

I should remind members that that forest production policy goes back to 1972, so it is quite possibly out of date, but the minister will not bring in his new policy, even though he promised to have it before us, and in layman's language, a year ago. We have yet to see that.

What is bothering the minister? Why will he not bring forth that new forest production policy? The minister once again has had done at public expense a report which he refuses to release. He also has not released the wood utilization report, which we know he has had since July 1982. He will soon have had that for two years, and he will not release that either.

I will stop now and urge members to support this resolution because of its commitment to sustained yield and because it is merely reinforcing the very words of the Premier.

Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the government party, I have always taken a very keen interest in any constructive or positive suggestions the opposition party makes. I might say they are rare and few, as far as I am concerned.

I would have liked to have been able to support this resolution that my friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) has brought forth. However, I cannot support it because in my mind it is a step backwards, not forward. We are already doing more for the forest industry than this resolution provides for.

Mr. Martel: Who wrote this speech for you?

Mr. Lane: I wrote it myself.

I do not think we should tie ourselves to legislation that would have us doing less in the Ontario forest management program than we are now doing.

3:30 p.m.

I believe the leader of the New Democratic Party has publicly stated that the Ministry of Natural Resources has a policy of planting two trees for each tree cut. As I recall it, his concern was the number of seedlings that will eventually grow into full trees. Perhaps, to be consistent with his leader's thinking, the member for Nickel Belt should have brought forward a resolution dealing with seedlings.

However, this is not necessary either, because the government has already expended significant effort to develop high-quality seedlings. In fact, the government of Ontario already has a comprehensive set of policies, programs and agreements in place that ensures good forest management in Ontario.

I believe the honourable member found this out when he travelled through the north last year with the task force his party set up. As a matter of fact, I was quite disappointed at the last set of estimates for the Ministry of Natural Resources when so much effort was made to set aside time to talk about what the task force had found out and, when the time came, there did not seem to be anything to talk about. It was just bare bones; there was nothing to talk about.

To be fair, as I always am, I know the member for Nickel Belt does have a sincere interest in forest management. This being the case, he should appreciate the government's approach, which recognizes all the various needs of the forest and its users. I take some exception to the remarks the member for Nickel Belt made regarding the minister's ability to understand the needs of the forest. I think this minister has done more for forestry in Ontario than any other person.

The object of the Ontario forest management program is to ensure the continuation of a healthy, plentiful forest that will continue to serve the needs of this province and its citizens and of Ontario's forest industry. Through such things as land use guidelines, forest fire management, research programs and forest management agreements, the government of Ontario is protecting, maintaining and renewing our great forested lands.

Through the forest management program now in place, the Ontario government is helping to ensure that the one-industry towns that depend so heavily on forestry will continue to exist and thrive well into the next century. I am thinking of towns such as Chapleau, Hearst and Espanola, where the entire population directly or indirectly depends on the forest for a living.

In fact, more than 50 per cent of northern Ontario's economic activity depends on forestry. In northwestern Ontario more than 75 per cent of the economy is linked to the forest industry. This translates into direct employment for 80,000 people in Ontario and indirect employment for as many as 80,000 more. That is 160,000 jobs in Ontario that are reliant on the forest industry.

Furthermore, this government must also consider the enjoyment this province's forest brings to many hikers and campers who take advantage of Ontario's large network of provincial parks and trails.

Forest management in Ontario requires a comprehensive approach that addresses all aspects of forestry: the entire cycle from harvesting to regenerating and to harvesting all over again.

I am pleased to remind this House, however, that the forest management program now in place under the auspices of the Minister of Natural Resources will have lasting and significant effects. In fact, it is one of the most advanced forest management programs in Canada.

Through forest management agreements signed between the government of Ontario and the forestry companies, the government has established an innovative way of protecting Ontario's forest. Each agreement requires a forest company working in co-operation with the Ministry of Natural Resources to treat, regenerate and tend areas where cutting operations have occurred.

If I were going to be critical at all of this area, it would be to say that there do not seem to be enough people following up those operations to clean up the tops and make firewood out of what is now being wasted. If I had some criticism to offer, that would be where I would offer it.

I would also like to draw the attention of the House to the woodlands improvement program, which many people seem to be unaware of even though it has been around for a long time. More of our farmers, especially in the north, should make use of this very worthwhile program, which requires an agreement between the farmer and the Ministry of Natural Resources for 15 years of sound woodlot management.

As I understand the program, the farmer must set aside at least five acres of trees. I am sure the member for Nickel Belt is aware of many acres in his riding that are growing nothing but weeds. I am sure in the great riding of Algoma-Manitoulin, which it is my pleasure to represent, there are many acres of privately owned vacant land that should be planted with trees. This woodlands improvement program provides that opportunity.

I know there are more than 10,000 such agreements in place in this province now. I know of at least one situation where a farmer has 50 acres planted in trees, mostly in white pine. Also, this farmer is thinning another 50-acre stand marked by Ministry of Natural Resources officials.

Mr. Stokes: We will be able to go back and harvest it in 80 or 100 years, will we not?

Mr. Lane: We do not have to wait that long any more. We can grow trees a lot faster than that.

To make it even more attractive and interesting to farmers, they are entitled to a 60 per cent property tax rebate on woodlands improvement project land. As I understand the program, the farmer pays for the trees, the Ministry of Natural Resources plants them and provides the management advice. It is a very excellent program.

As a matter of fact, I would like to point out that under this program, 43,000 seedlings will be planted on Manitoulin Island in the next few weeks. Later in July, approximately 75,000 jackpine trees, which are grown in small paper pots, are also scheduled for planting. Around the Massey area, in my riding, approximately 162,000 nursery seedlings will be planted, and approximately 16,000 of these are on privately owned land. I think it is important that we recognize the potential that privately owned woodlands play in the future need for wood supplies.

Going back 30 years ago, when I was living on the farm full time, I and most of my fellow farmers used to harvest a number of cords of pulpwood each year. The amount varied from 25 to 50 cords per farmer, depending on the acreage a farmer had and how much energy he had to produce the wood. I might say to my friends across the way that there were no chainsaws then, so we had to cut it all with a swedesaw or bucksaw.

This, of course, was done on a selective cutting basis by myself and other owners because we needed the money from producing that timber. I owned approximately 800 acres at that time, and I continued to produce wood off it each year. I sold that land 25 years ago, and there has not been a stick of wood produced off it since. So there are all kinds of opportunities to put that kind of land into proper production.

Mr. Martel: Ah!

Mr. Lane: The member for Sudbury East says, "Ah." He knows darned well there are all kinds of acreage throughout the north that should be planted with new trees. This program provides for that. As I say, it gives the farmer a 60 per cent return on his property tax. It is an excellent program, and for that reason I am trying to interest all the farmers I can in this woodlands improvement program. As much as I would like to support the resolution from across the way, I am not able to for those reasons.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the position taken by the previous speaker on this subject, because after all a resolution like this gives every legislator an opportunity to rise and express what is a very real concern about the future of one of the most important industries in this province. To simply dismiss the resolution in a cavalier way and say, "We are doing better than that, so this resolution is not important," misses the point the member for Nickel Belt was trying to make with the resolution as it was presented.

I know we could enter into a debate this afternoon as to whether the government is doing better than two trees for one and so on. The fact is that we know the forest industry has a problem down the road. That is generally accepted. We know that unless we turn that around rather immediately, the problem will be extremely serious, and the forest industry no longer will take the prominent place in the economy of Ontario that it has taken to this time.

3:40 p.m.

I suggest in the strongest possible terms to every member in this Legislature, regardless of the side of the House he or she is sitting on, that consideration be given to addressing the spirit of this resolution. After all, it does say one fundamental thing and points to one very fundamental objective; that is the objective of sustained-yield forest management. This is something we cannot avoid.

I could have said the resolution did not contain some very critical and important elements, but rather than criticize the resolution I would like to address those for a couple of minutes. They are complementary to the spirit of this resolution.

The wasteful cutting practices report mentioned by the member for Nickel Belt has been on the minister's desk since July 1982. Perhaps the minister in his response this afternoon will give us some indication that he will table this report on wasteful cutting practices and not have us go on believing the kind of paltry little slaps on the wrist that were given to various wasters in the forest industry in the past is going on now. I hope he will stop being so secretive.

We are concerned about the ministry's ad hockery when it comes to forest management. I know we have forest management agreements. I know we had two-for-one in the Brampton charter. The charter also said every acre harvested would be regenerated. I have heard the minister say in estimates that is impossible.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Did I say that is impossible?

Mr. J. A. Reed: Yes, I will find the quotation.

Hon. Mr. Pope: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The honourable member knows every acre harvested automatically regenerates. That is exactly what I was saying.

Mr. J. A. Reed: All right. I expect I am going to have to rise on a point of personal privilege at a later date to point out exactly the text and the context of the minister's statement when he said it was impossible.

I am concerned about a subject we have avoided for too long in this Legislature. It is something that is very immediate in the forest industry and that is the kill that appears to be taking place. If anyone is driving from Sudbury to Toronto, he can now drive through thousands of acres of various varieties of evergreens that are dying. If we go into the country in southern Ontario we will see stands of Ontario's own tree, the white pine, that are beginning to die back at the tips.

I wonder what the government is doing beyond monitoring the death of these large areas. Have they come to a conclusion about what is causing something that appears to be an imminent tragedy in various areas?

Some of the minister's own officials have indicated to me that the kill of various species is due to a combination of circumstances, not the least of which may be acid rain. If European research is to be looked at, it suggests acid rain is releasing some heavy metals into the environment around the trees which are being taken up through the tree roots.

I wonder what handle the ministry has on that. It seems to me the potential for disaster is very much with us.

We are still losing land to regeneration. In other words, we are still in a negative situation. We still have not come to grips with the huge clear-cut areas lying unregenerated. We are still not addressing that 30 per cent, as has been pointed out, of the regenerable area that is covered over with slash and forest waste and cannot be regenerated until that is removed.

This matter is serious. We can talk all we like about forest management agreements and more intensive planting of seedlings and so on, but I doubt very much whether we have really come to grips with the key to the problem. We are still rearranging our priorities as issues arise.

We came to this Legislature with much-heralded guidelines on land use last year. The ink was barely dry when we began to jockey that around. We have now made an agreement regarding Brightsand waterway candidate park area which would remove some 11,000 acres from that waterway park.

At the same time, the minister has said the prospect for the availability of wood supply has led the ministry to conclude the situation is fully manageable. It is this sort of contradictory approach to forest management, coupled with the secretive nature of the operations of the Ministry of Natural Resources, that causes this party the greatest concern.

If I can get a message to the minister today, it would be that if he is going to have credibility in the future and maintain whatever credibility he may have now, he has to make his position more consistent and abandon this policy of secretiveness that is causing such concern among the opposition, among foresters and among the people of Ontario. It will eventually cause equal concern in the forest industry itself, when the prospects of future supplies may well look grim indeed.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in getting involved in this debate this afternoon is not to point a finger at the minister or the ministry for doing nothing. What I want to do is highlight the need to recognize the state of the art in proper forest management.

As somebody mentioned, 75 per cent of all the economic activity in northwestern Ontario is directly dependent on and related to our ability to manage our forest resources well. It is our very lifeblood. Since the Armson report in 1976, it has been made abundantly clear there is a need for a reversal of what has gone on before; that is, for every three acres harvested, one was artificially regenerated, one was left alone, and it was hoped one would be naturally regenerated.

I do not have to trot out the figures, but the minister knows of the thousands upon thousands of acres of backlog that have been left to their own devices. The minister just mentioned, in response to a comment by the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. J. A. Reed), that every acre is automatically regenerated. We know that, but he knows what comes up if it is left to its own devices.

3:50 p.m.

One might have the weed species or one might have the alder -- the minister shakes his head. If he believes all one has to be is cut down trees, whether it is clear-cutting, block-cutting or strip-cutting, and just go away and forget about it for the next rotation of 80 to 100 years, he is even more naive than I would give him credit for.

The member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) said he could not support this resolution because they are doing more than is called for. This is the most motherhood resolution I have ever seen. I do not know how anyone could object to it.

We are asking for detailed classification and inventory of the land base, complete regeneration treatment after harvest and diligent tending of new growth, a substantial financial commitment along with a commitment to dedicate sufficient human resources in order to manage it properly under the forest management agreement, to regenerate areas by planting two trees where every one was cut and that every acre harvested be regenerated.

I am not absolutely certain we could fit the bill with regard to the final one, because with mechanical harvesting the way we have it today, on a clear-cut basis, with no regard for what the net result will be, we have a lot of very shallow sites throughout the province. If you did it by mechanical harvesting, as opposed to harvesting with a bucksaw and a few horses, there are a lot of areas in the province that would not regenerate for the next 300 or 400 years.

If the member for Algoma-Manitoulin or the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) do not realize that, they should just go to where we are harvesting at the present time and listen to their own professional foresters. Listen to the foresters who are employed by the industry, and if they think every area we are cutting in Ontario can be satisfactorily regenerated to a prime species, they are even more naive than I think they are.

My colleague quoted from a speech Ken Armson gave to people in Montreal. He said:

"There is really no problem. It is within manageable limits. We will have sufficient fibre, but it may not be of the quality or the proper species to look after our total needs."

We visited Hearst and talked to those sawmill operators and asked them what were the medium- and long-term prospects for those industries. They told us they think they could manage their needs for sawlogs over the next six to seven years. After that, unless they got a new source of supply, they were going to be in a real bind.

The same thing ultimately is going to happen to those producers of lumber in the Chapleau and Dubreuilville areas. The same thing is going to be the case with regard to Great West Timber and the Buchanan interests in northwestern Ontario, because they cannot go in and use the hardwoods in the traditional sense, for dimensional lumber for the building industry. Anyone knows that.

There is no need to ship prime sawlogs to pulp and paper mills and have them ground up when we could have a sharing of timber, so we could get the maximum bang for our buck by a rationalization of the total fibre available. Sawmills need sawlogs. Pulp and paper mills need fibre; it does not have to be in the form of roundwood.

If the minister stood at the junction of Highways 11 and 17 he would see the number of tree-length and eight-foot logs which are going every which way, simply because there is no rationalization -- everything is based on licence limits that were awarded to the company some decades ago -- and he would see the residue from the sawmills going every which way. There is absolutely no rationalization even with regard to accessing.

I can take the members to an area around Kopka Lake that was the subject of great debate here not long ago. If you fly over it, you see government-funded roads on the Domtar limits, on the Abitibi-Price limits and on the Great Lakes Forest Products limits, all going in the same general area. It costs a fortune to provide access. There is no rationalization at all.

There is no reason why the superintendents of woodlands operations of those three companies could not have got together and said, 'We are going to have to access that same general area so let us do it in a sane, rational and economical way." That has never been done.

It has never been done with regard to proper sharing of the fibre so we can make maximum use of the forests themselves. The minister has been trying to get a wood utilization direction from his minions and his ministry for two or three years with the greatest of difficulty. He has not come out with one yet. I do not blame him. I think it is the boondoggle of the people he has been depending on for expert advice as to the maximization of the social and economic benefits of our forests.

The minister is going to have to stiffen his back and say to his deputy minister, his assistant deputy ministers and the Armsons of this world, "Come on, tell it like it is," because he is the fellow who is going to have to carry the can. I am not suggesting this minister has been sitting idly by and doing nothing. He has probably done more in his relatively short tenure than any other minister I have had to deal with over the past 17 years, but maintaining the status quo is not good enough.

I think the minister has a report. I do not know what it says, but I happen to know the author and if the author told him what he saw, as I am sure he did, the minister must be concerned. The minister has told me privately he is going to sit down and talk about that report with the people who are charged with the responsibility of advising the minister.

If the minister is going to get the maximum use of our forestry resources for the benefit of all the people of Ontario, and if he is going to get maximum benefit from the human resources he has in his ministry, whether they be researchers, whether they be paper pushers behind a desk, or whether they are monitoring and auditing what is going on with regard to the forest management agreements, the only way he is going to do it is by a total commitment to regeneration in every detail as outlined in this resolution by my colleague. Anyone who objects to this resolution is simply not in tune with the situation in our forests today.

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak against the private member's resolution of the member for Nickel Belt for the following reasons.

Mr. Martel: Of course.

Mr. McClellan: You are opposed to reforestation.

Mr. Stokes: You are opposed to it because you do not know anything about it. Running a newspaper is a lot different from running our forests.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Just ignore the interjections.

Mr. Piché: I would like to answer the member. I said "for the following reasons," and he did not give me a chance to say anything before he said I did not know what I was talking about.

Mr. Stokes: I have heard those speeches for the last 17 years.

Mr. Piché: The member has not heard this one because I have not delivered it yet.

Mr. Stokes: I can even tell you who the author is.

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, if you excuse that member, I think the House will agree with you.

I have no doubt the Minister of Natural Resources is providing expert care and management for Ontario's forests through regeneration and research. We all know how important Ontario's forests are. They are the cornerstone of our northern economy. They provide jobs, security and enjoyment.

4 p.m.

Our forest industry provides direct employment for 80,000 people. It is the very lifeblood of many of our northern communities. These are facts, and I am sure all the members of this House are aware of these facts and accept them. However, there appear to be some who do not accept the fact that the Minister of Natural Resources is taking every step possible to protect and manage our vital forest resources wisely and competently.

The ministry's reforestation effort is just one example of this wise management. In 1983 the ministry spent $65 million on reforestation, $14 million on site preparation and $11 million on planting and seeding. The ministry's overall forest resources budget has almost tripled over the last six years, from $52 million in 1978-79 to $162 million in 1984-85.

In the last 10 years Ontario's forest revenues have increased threefold, from $18 million to $53 million. In the same period the ministry's reinvestment in forestry increased fivefold, from $44 million to $227 million. Of course, much of this positive action is a direct result of the forest management agreements negotiated between the province and the forest companies. In February of this year the Minister of Natural Resources signed a new agreement with Dubreuil Brothers for a forest north of Sault Ste. Marie. In April he signed three new agreements with Boise Cascade Canada Ltd. in Kenora, bringing the total number signed by the province to 21.

The Boise Cascade agreements were especially significant because they meant all that company's timber operations are now covered by forest management agreements. Boise Cascade is the third major forest company in Ontario to sign FMAs covering all its timber operations. Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co. Ltd. and E. B. Eddy Forest Products Ltd. have also signed FMAs covering all of their licensed operations.

I am sure this House is fully aware of the value of FMAs to Ontario. They represent a truly co-operative arrangement that allows the industry to play a much more active role in the management and renewal of the forests that benefit them directly. Each FMA requires the agreement holder to treat our vested areas according to the silvicultural specification in the agreement and to treat unsatisfactory areas at a specific rate.

Forest companies accept the responsibility for forest management practices such as road construction, harvesting and tending. The Ministry of Natural Resources, with assistance from the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, provides subsidies for forest access roads and funding for silvicultural work. The end result is better forest management with commitments and co-operation from both government and industry.

By next year the Ministry of Natural Resources hopes to have 30 FMAs in place covering most of the forest operations on currently licensed crown land in Ontario. The government of Ontario will have spent about $90 million on these arrangements by that time. It is an important investment and a necessary investment for the future. Ontario's forests are vital to a strong provincial economy. FMAs create jobs today and protect forestry jobs of the future by protecting our forests and providing for their renewal.

The increase in the number of trees being planted is worthy of mention here, for the statistics are truly impressive. As the members may know, the ministry planted 80 million trees in 1982. In 1983 that figure jumped by 27 million to a total of 107 million trees planted. This year it is up an additional 20 million to 127 million trees. By 1987 Ontario will be planting some 200 million trees a year. If that rate were to be sustained for just five years, we would be planting one billion trees in this province by 1992.

How has this phenomenal increase been possible? The government has gone to the private sector for the additional capacity that was needed as a result of forest management agreements. The ministry has signed contracts with 20 private growers throughout northern Ontario for container tree-seedling production. The resulting rate of expansion of Ontario's forest renewal capacity has been tremendous. In 1981 the output from private greenhouses was zero, in 1982 it was five million trees, last year it was 25 million and this year it will be more than 63 million.

In my own area, which lies within the ministry's northern region, the number of trees being planted this year is more than 50 million, up more than seven million from 1983. These statistics not only prove the value of forest management agreements to forest renewal, but also show that the Minister of Natural Resources is committed to careful and intelligent forest management.

The expansion of tree seedling production has not only enabled the ministry to ensure a greater degree of forest renewal, but has also created jobs throughout northern Ontario, providing related benefits for the people of Ontario both now and in the future.

Members know that producing the seedlings and putting them in the ground is nut enough; they have to survive if they are truly' to benefit future generations. In this area I am pleased to note that Ontario's regeneration success rates compare favourably with those of other jurisdictions. Last year the survival rate of our major forest species was 80 to 95 per cent. Much of this can be directly attributed to the expertise and dedication of the ministry staff, including the minister himself.

Ontario has two foresters and 5.25 forest technicians for every one million acres of productive forest. That works out to one forest professional for every 138,000 acres of crown and productive private woodlands.

Our outstanding forest management programs are the envy of many jurisdictions. At the 75th annual meeting of the Canadian Institute of Forestry in Sault Ste. Marie last fall a resolution was passed congratulating the Premier of Ontario for this province's lead role in forest management in Canada.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Piché: In closing, I think Ontario's vital forest wealth is receiving the kind of excellent management --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Fiche: -- to which the people of this province have become accustomed.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, but I see my time is up.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) on his glowing report of the successes of the ministry. The figures probably have as much meaning for me as a southern Ontario farmer as they do for the honourable member as a newspaper owner from Kapuskasing. The connection, I think, is that probably he is doing more to use up the pulp trees in the publication of the Kapuskasing Bugle than he is doing to assist in the reforestation of our forests.

4:10 p.m.

One of the interesting statistics I read recently is that, for every five pages of newsprint used in the world, two of them come from Canada. We are using our wood resources at an astonishingly high rate as the requirements, particularly for pulp and paper, grow worldwide. It has made for us a very lucrative export product.

When we read those reports from time to time we see, because of the good fiscal management of the government of Canada, our export trade balance is very much in our favour. A good deal of that can be traced to the sale of our trees from northern Ontario in the form of newsprint to the huge consumers in New York, Chicago and other American centres.

The honourable member was talking about reforestation in the millions and it is clear it is still inadequate. I congratulate the member for Nickel Belt for bringing forward the resolution. We in this party are going to support it enthusiastically. It would seem almost incredible that the Progressive Conservative Party would stand in the way of such a vote, as proud as they are of their accomplishments, according to the member for Cochrane North. If we all stood together and made a commitment to improve our effort in reforestation, which, according to the member for Cochrane North, is already quite good, then I think we could all pat ourselves on the back.

A resolution in this House by itself does little more than use up a little more fibre as we print it in Orders and Notices and send out the copies of Hansard to our mothers, fathers-in-law and other people interested in these great speeches.

I have a bit of advice for the minister. He should be here and he is here. I look forward to his taking part in the debate in a few minutes, or has he already spoken?

Mr. Ruston: No, he has not.

Mr. Nixon: I was not here for the whole thing.

I have a bit of advice for the minister because I can tell from the way he follows the action in question period and from what I hear from my Tory friends he considers himself upwardly mobile politically. I think he has set his sights considerably higher than trying to be a provincial judge in the north or one of those things. There is no doubt he is an attractive man with a good education. He has his temper under a little bit better control than he had a couple of years ago, although one can never tell with these fellows. The front runners in the Tory leadership are not doing as well as some of the back-benchers had expected, so the field is wide open.

We do not know what the future holds, but this time next year I would think there would be a leadership convention here. The minister could certainly do worse than get on the reforestation bandwagon in a big way. If the best way to push forward the efforts of his ministry are speeches like those of the member for Cochrane North, I do not think that is sexy enough to sell a leadership campaign.

Many of the members who were in the House some years ago may recall the furore right across Canada, but particularly in Metropolitan Toronto, when there was some thought there was going to be a lumbering operation in Quetico Park. As Leader of the Opposition at the time, I remember the meetings in downtown Toronto where the halls were crowded with citizens of Toronto who had probably never been to Quetico and have probably never been there since.

Mr. Stokes: Ethel Teitlebaum.

Mr. Nixon: Her Honour Judge Ethel Teitlebaum was the one who was leading it. She got a strong response.

When it comes to the maintenance and growth of our forest resources, the people of this province are very keenly in support. There is that feeling of pride in Ontario that this resource, probably our most valuable renewable resource, is something the government over the years has been profligate in its management of, if members will pardon that grammatical inversion.

Going back in the grand tradition of politics in this province, there has been the feeling the Progressive Conservative Party has not dealt in a fair and equitable way with the development of our forest resources. In years gone by we have had committees to look into charges that the government has rewarded its friends with very large special contracts and arrangements, enabling these resources to be harvested with very little supervision and, for many years with practically no reforestation.

A program the minister could enter into enthusiastically with the support of every member of this House would be well accepted in this jurisdiction. What is the sense of his being Minister of Natural Resources if he does not come forward with something innovative? The idea of forest management agreements is not innovative enough. We are told by the experts, including the member for Cochrane North, that those that have been established are working rather well. If we can get private enterprise to use their dollars to do a larger share of the reforestation, so much the better, but I have a feeling they do so without losing much money themselves.

It was interesting to note that Boise Cascade, which has many of its operations in Ontario, is reporting absolutely record profits on a worldwide basis. They are reporting profit levels that are absolutely astounding, in spite of difficulties with labour-management relations in this jurisdiction and elsewhere. Management evidently has been effective enough so it could produce its raw materials cheap and sell them dear in the markets of the world, particularly in the United States.

It could be that for the benefit of the public we in this province should be withdrawing more revenue from the utilization of these resources and turning it into the maintenance and expanding of the resources. We all know we have hundreds -- in fact, thousands -- of energetic young people just aching for a job in the forest development industry of this province. It has been a long time since we could say to these young people, other than through Junior Rangers and similar programs, "We open this up to your energy and initiative."

I would certainly hope the acceptance of this resolution would be such that the minister would be provided with a mandate from the House and from the Treasurer to go forward with a modern, effective program of reforestation.

As a member for southern Ontario, I want to end my remarks with a plea for stepping up these programs in the southern part of the province as well. We know there has been a considerable amount of research done on fast-growing poplar trees. There was some sort of program in eastern Ontario that was going to use up some of the properties bought by the poor judgement of the government some years ago. It was going to be an industrial site, but they decided to turn it into a poplar tree farm. We have not heard much about that, but we do know the research goes forward.

There are many hundreds of thousands of acres in southern Ontario which are not used for productive farming. It would be very wise leadership if this minister, through the conservation authorities or even directly -- and frankly I would have just as much confidence if he did it directly through the manifestations of his own ministry -- undertook a stepped-up reforestation program in southern Ontario.

The land and the will are there. To be fair, there are programs to assist small land holders to put a few trees on a few steep banks. I have even done that on our own farm. While I bought the trees, I appreciate that there will be assistance from the ministry as long as we keep the land in forest production. But I think we can certainly do more in southern Ontario as well as northern Ontario.

The minister has an opportunity to influence his colleagues to support this resolution which would give him a mandate to go forward with a program the province needs. It would not do him any harm either.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago I read Ken Armson's report and the great alarm he expressed. It is strange how quickly he has changed his attitude. I am amazed. This reminds me of Vern Singer. He changed his attitude almost totally over --

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Consistency.

Mr. Martel: Yes. The minister said a while ago we negotiated the forest management agreements with his predecessor. I might say we had an interesting discussion at that time. One of the things we thought was guaranteed was that we were going to get all the facts all the time about things that were going on in Ontario.

4:20 p.m.

It is strange that as my colleagues tried to do the task force report, the figures the minister presented to us did not quite conform with the figures he has. Yet he will not produce the figures he is using. He runs around the country saying, "Their figures are wrong." Yet those are the minister's figures. It is funny the games that go on, is it not? But that was the agreement: we would get the information.

I am surprised this afternoon at those Tories, because those words are from none other than the Premier.

I can remember writing the former minister in that portfolio about Algonquin Park one year. I said, "We should at least be cutting one tree for one." He said to me, "From your remarks to me about reforestation it would appear that you are still looking for a relationship between the number of trees cut and the number of trees planted."

Obviously that was not good enough. The Premier went one further. He said in 1977, "We are going to plant two trees for each one cut." And when we came to that election, that was one of the promises. Now they are voting against it. When the bill came forward, I moved the Premier's amendment precisely as he had it worded. Today, as then, the Tories are going to vote against the Premier. They voted against him then.

We got an interesting letter that was prepared for the Minister of Natural Resources of the day; it was given to us by our good friend James Auld. It was signed by Walter J. Obelnycki, solicitor, legal services branch, with respect to two trees for one. I want to put this letter on the record again.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Which year was that?

Mr. Martel: It was 1979. We were talking about two trees for one. On the one hand, the government says we are doing better than two trees for one -- the member from Algoma-Manitoulin said that today, that we are doing better than what is in here -- yet when we talk about sustained yield, the government is opposed to sustained yield.

Let us see what they said about their Premier. It says here, "Firstly, this amendment" -- the amendment I moved on behalf of the Premier, since no Tories had the courage to do it; I just took his amendment – "in effect, redefines 'sustained yield' to mean the planting of two trees for every tree harvested and regenerating every acre that is harvested." That is what the Premier said, so I moved it on behalf of the Premier.

"This redefinition of 'sustained yield' conflicts with the definition of that expression as set out in subsection 2 of section 5a, namely, 'the growth of timber that a forest can produce and that can be cut to achieve a continuous approximate balance between the growth of timber and timber cut.' In our opinion, this conflict that is created by virtue of the amendment proposed by the member for Sudbury East, must be eliminated." But I moved it only on behalf of the Premier.

Mr. Lane: We can move our own amendments.

Mr. Martel: Well, the Premier said it. He said it "must be eliminated." So much for the Premier; those guys over there do not believe him.

I want to go to the second point of Mr. Obelnycki's letter, and I suspect the member for Algoma-Manitoulin knows him. He went on to say, "Secondly, we are advised that the amendment proposed by the member for Sudbury East would severely restrict the reforestation effort in Ontario."

If we substitute the Premier's name for mine, what Mr. Obelnycki was saying with respect to the Premier's promise was, "Secondly, we are advised that the amendment proposed by the Premier would severely restrict the reforestation effort in Ontario." My God, I did not see any of those silly servants saying that when the Premier promised it.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Three for one now.

Mr. Martel: Wait a minute. It says that cannot be done either. I am coming to that. I am glad the minister said that. He should just stick around.

"The amendment provides, in part, that the yield is to be sustained on the basis that at least two trees are planted for every tree cut. This amendment restricts the method of obtaining regeneration to planting." Well, if you plant three trees it makes it worse, does it not?

Hon. Mr. Pope: No.

Mr. Martel: Oh, no.

"We are advised that regeneration is obtained by planting, seeding and silvicultural harvesting systems. The choice of method used to obtain regeneration in any particular ease depends upon many factors such as the type of soil, the nature of the forest being harvested, the type of species to be regenerated and the objectives of management. It is reasonably clear that restricting the method of obtaining regeneration to planting would severely inhibit the reforestation effort in Ontario."

The Premier must have been saying that then. That was his commitment. It was his amendment. My friend says no, and yet it is the Premier's amendment word for word. It is adopted right from the charter, right from the words of none other than the Premier.

Let me talk about point 3, and this is the best point of all.

"Thirdly, the amendment proposed by the member for Sudbury East" -- and we could put "Premier" there, because it is his — "also has implications that are simply absurd." That man is calling our Premier absurd, and I resent it. I really resent that Mr. Obelnycki would suggest the Premier was being absurd. I really resent it. The minister should fire him.

"The amendment states that the agreement shall provide 'that every acre harvested is regenerated.' The underlined word 'shall' means that this obligation is mandatory." That is what the Premier said. I just helped him along. The members opposite do not want to help him today and they did not want to help him then. Is the minister suggesting the Premier was out there going from town to town in that 1977 campaign trying to deceive the people of Ontario? That would not be the case, would it? What was he doing? I am just quoting. I am using the Premier's own amendment.

Mr. Lane: You are putting your interpretation on it.

Mr. Martel: There is no interpretation by me. I read it and the member has read it, and that is what the Premier had in the charter. My colleague quoted it word for word. The members cannot play around with it. That is what the Premier said. The members will not support him again this afternoon.

"However, we are advised that when a forest is harvested, about 10 to 15 per cent of its area is removed from forest production for haul roads, buildings and other permanent works. The foregoing mandatory provision would require a company to regenerate the area covered by such permanent works. A provision that leads to such absurdity should not, in our opinion, be legislated into law."

Can the members imagine that? The absurdity of the Premier. He wants to reforest all the trees. Perhaps the minister can tell me whether 15 per cent is coming out of production, where he is putting the three trees for one. I can suggest perhaps one place, but I am not sure it would be appropriate in here.

"Fourthly, our discussions with the administrators who negotiated with the forest industry in respect of the provisions of the current draft forest management agreement have indicated that they feel that, in virtue of the implications of the amendment proposed by the member for Sudbury East, the forest industry will not desire to enter into a forest management agreement, if such amendment is legislated into law."

I put that on the record only because I have listened to the prattle from that minister. We negotiated the amendment which was going to provide us with all the facts the minister says now are confidential; he cannot give that information out. That is not what was agreed to in the negotiations with the late James Auld. If the minister now wants to hide and pretend that material is not available, that certainly was not what was agreed to. The minister does not have the guts to get up and provide all the facts. He hides behind it because we are busy subsidizing the industry to hell and back.

I want to tell the minister, the day is going to come when somebody in the press gallery is going to write about the Premier's promise and the types of letters supplied to us which say, "What you are suggesting is contradictory," when we are merely repeating the exact words used by the Premier, and the minister has not done much to help the matter.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Laughren: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nickel Belt has two minutes left, I understand.

Mr. Laughren: After the minister.

Mr. Speaker: No. We are coming to the end.

Mr. Laughren: I thought I was the last speaker.

Mr. Speaker: You are the last speaker.

Mr. Nixon: Give it to the minister.

Mr. Laughren: I will give it to the minister, all right.

I appreciate the fact that the other members have spoken on this resolution. I simply want to ask the government members a couple of questions. If all is as well as they claim in the forest, let them answer this question: Why are we, the taxpayers of Ontario, putting in $200 million a year to subsidize the reforestation of the forests? The forests are run by free enterprise companies, and we are subsidizing them with $200 million a year. That is the goal for reforestation, for forest management in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Pope: How much are they paying in taxes?

Mr. Laughren: Are they paying $200 million?

Hon. Mr. Pope: They are paying $600 million.

Mr. Laughren: I see. Is that going to be the rule out there? Will it be that they will just line up, and if they pay their taxes, they will get subsidies?

Hon. Mr. Pope: No.

Mr. Stokes: That is not so and the minister knows it.

Mr. Laughren: Is the minister saying we make money?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: If we had managed the forests, and it is this government's responsibility, on a sustained yield basis in the past there would not be the need to put $200 million a year of taxpayers' money into forest management, because it is playing a catch-up game and the minister knows it. He should be ashamed of his record of reforestation in Ontario.

If all is so well with the forests, would he tell us why he will not release reports about the forests done by his officials? Why will he not make that information public? It is paid for by public dollars, but the government keeps the information to itself.

SMOKE DETECTORS

Mr. Havrot moved, seconded by Mr. Pollock, resolution 7:

That given the persuasive evidence that properly installed smoke detectors do help prevent tragic loss of life and property damage by providing occupants of a dwelling with an early warning in the case of fire, this House urges all municipalities which have not already done so to pass bylaws under the Planning Act to require that, regardless of their date of construction, all homes, apartments and such public buildings as hotels and motels be fitted with appropriate smoke detectors; and that the insurance industry encourage home owners to install smoke detectors by offering more attractive insurance rates to home owners who install smoke detectors on their property.

Mr. Speaker: I point out to the honourable member that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation. He may reserve any portion of that time he wishes for a windup.

Mr. Havrot: Mr. Speaker, we react to announcements such as "Two Killed in Fire" or "Child Trapped in Blaze" with horror and regret but often nothing more. The intent of this regulation is to change this.

Fire prevention is not, as some would say, a politically sexy issue. Public attitudes towards fire precautions and safety are often complacent and lax. It is true the technicalities of fire safety can be mundane and less than exciting, but a failure of this House to address it for these reasons is an abdication of our responsibilities as members of this Legislature.

The government of Ontario has already taken major steps towards better fire safety and awareness. Most recently, the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) tabled the Report of the Public Inquiry into Fire Safety in Highrise Buildings. The recommendations arising from the inquiry deal with many fire-related issues that will most surely spark a vigorous and productive dialogue among legislators, fire safety agencies and the public. Inevitably, the actions arising out of Judge John B. Webber's report will contribute to increased fire safety and awareness in Ontario.

In addition, concrete legislative measures and actions have been taken by this government. The Ontario Building Code requires that all buildings constructed since 1976 be equipped with approved smoke detectors. The Ontario Fire Marshals Act requires that all buildings intended for the use of public assembly, as identified in the retrofit regulation of the act, be equipped with fire alarm and detection systems.

Further, the Ontario government has developed rigorous standards and recommendations for the use of smoke alarms in older residential buildings. While these are not law, Ontario municipalities are encouraged to incorporate the standards into their own bylaws and regulations.

Our responsibility extends much further. Legislation and resolutions alone will not decrease the incidence of fatal and destructive fires. Education and public awareness will. This resolution is one step towards increasing public awareness about fire safety. By urging municipalities to adopt bylaws that require smoke detectors in all buildings, and not just in those built since 1976, I hope we will be developing a greater awareness at the local level.

Significant press coverage has been generated in this regard. Our friends in the press gallery generally feel that more rigorous fire protection standards are a good thing. Some Ontario municipalities also agree that tougher regulations and bylaws are in order. Kingston, Mississauga, Ottawa, London and Peterborough are among those municipalities that now have bylaws making smoke alarms mandatory in residences.

Kingston's smoke alarm bylaw is generally believed to be the most sweeping and comprehensive. The legislation stipulates that every dwelling must have a smoke alarm device. It also places the responsibility for purchase and installation on the occupants, whether they live in a single-family dwelling or in an apartment unit. In the case of individually rented rooms, the onus is on the owner of the building. Failure to comply with this bylaw could mean a fine of up to $500.

The response to such bylaws has been both positive and encouraging. Fire inspectors claim mandatory use of smoke alarms has helped to save lives and minimize destructive property loss. What is sad is that it often takes a fatal fire to initiate action on such legislation.

The Kingston bylaw was prompted by a fire that killed a family of four. Perhaps these deaths could have been prevented had an adequate smoke alarm system been in place. If more Canadians were aware of the devastation and loss caused by fire in Canada, perhaps there also would be more interest in fire prevention and detection.

A National Research Council study estimates that the loss caused by fire is 1.5 per cent of the gross national product. This compares poorly with the European fire loss, estimated at one per cent of the gross national product. Members will agree this is not a record of which we should be proud. The statistics reveal a tragic waste of lives and property, made all the more tragic by the fact that many fires were preventable.

In 1981, a total of 227 Ontario citizens died as a result of fire. Of these, 112 were men, 73 were women and 42 were children. What an unnecessary loss of life. The statistics revealing property loss are just as staggering. In 1981, the total fire loss for Ontario was $234 million. What a waste. Such a loss provides ample reason for the increased use of smoke alarms.

4:40 p.m.

Studies about the impact of smoke alarms on minimizing fire losses are still relatively few. However, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that smoke alarms do save lives and decrease fire damage. A program undertaken by the Ontario Housing Corp. in 1974 shows ample evidence of a strong correlation between the effective use of smoke alarms and the increased safety of human lives and property. The program was undertaken as a result of a fatal fire that took the lives of a family of six in a Metro Toronto OHC unit.

In 1974, the board of directors authorized the installation of smoke alarms in all units of its housing portfolio. Priority was given to single-family dwellings and those with limited egress. By the end of 1977, the main work was completed.

In 1978 the Ontario Housing Corp. undertook a study to determine the dividends of the program. The results were most impressive. During the period of 1975 to 1977 there were 64 fires reported in which smoke detectors were involved. In those fires, the smoke detector saved a possible 21 lives. Smoke alarms minimized property damage in 50 of those fires. In only five of them the smoke alarm was ineffective.

It is no mystery where and when these fires start. Of the 21 incidents where the smoke detector may have saved lives, 18 occurred when the occupant was asleep. Furthermore, 13 of these potentially fatal fires started in the bedroom; five started in the living room. Had the smoke alarm not been activated in these cases, the tenants may well have remained asleep and been asphyxiated. These are the conventional reasons why smoke alarms are so effective and worth while.

These results alone provide solid evidence why a concerted effort should be made to encourage municipalities to require smoke alarms in all residences. But this study provides even more evidence of the desirability of smoke alarms in dwellings.

Smoke alarms lead to early discovery of fires. In this same study it is estimated that 85 per cent of all fires were discovered by smoke alarms. Early detection such as this obviously minimizes the disastrous toll of fire on human lives and personal property.

Often smoke alarms alert parents to fires around children. We all know how enticing matches and fire can be to a small child. All too often a child becomes a victim of his own play. In 1981, 42 children died as a result of fires. In the Ontario Housing Corp. study alone, eight of the 21 potentially fatal fires were caused by children playing with fire.

Often smoke alarms can quickly discover potentially dangerous fires caused by children. This allows action to be taken before an unnecessary fatality occurs. Smoke alarms also encourage neighbours to team up in the fire detection process. In the OHC study, neighbours reported one quarter of all the fires that occurred. In eight cases, the tenants were not home. In two others, neighbours saved the lives of individuals.

Co-operative action of this nature certainly testifies to the desirability of smoke alarms. If we can make more individuals, tenants and neighbours aware of the compound effect of smoke alarm devices, we will be one step further in educating the public about fire detection and prevention. If neighbours do not team up with each other in fire prevention, we will continue to have the unacceptably high fire losses of the past.

The benefits of smoke alarms can certainly not be in question. One can see there is ample evidence to suggest the desirability of smoke alarms in all dwellings and buildings. But all the evidence in the world is worthless if the public is not aware of it.

One of the main purposes of this resolution is to begin to generate increased public awareness about fire prevention and safety. Members have a responsibility to do this in their own constituencies. Through discussions with local leaders and constituents, they can help to raise the level of awareness.

The recently released Webber report will facilitate public dialogue on fire safety. By urging local municipalities to pass bylaws requiring smoke alarms in all residences, we will be encouraging public debate on the issue. We all know one of the best ways to get the public interested in something is to create an issue. A bylaw making the use of smoke alarms mandatory in all homes, apartments and public buildings will certainly do that.

Some individuals may balk at the cost of installing smoke alarms, but I am sure this will cease when they become aware of the dividends of smoke alarms. One need only point out that an adequate fire alarm costs between $10 and $15 and the 1981 per capita fire loss in Ontario was $27.23. One can see it does not take much to prove the point.

If members and local municipalities can raise such a debate, I am confident public awareness about fire prevention and safety will rise. I am also confident our friends in the press will be most accommodating in conveying this sound message to their readership.

With increased knowledge about fire and smoke detection systems, I am confident more people will support municipal legislation requiring the use of fire alarms. Furthermore, I feel more individuals will ensure that smoke alarms are installed in their own places of residence and places of public assembly.

There are still many more ways individuals and organizations can be encouraged to install smoke alarm devices. Insurance companies are increasingly becoming aware of the advantages of smoke alarms. Through advertising, competitive policy rates and other avenues, they can become instrumental in promoting the use of smoke alarms in more buildings.

There is also an increasing feeling that people such as superintendents of apartment buildings should assume a larger role in fire prevention and detection. If such people were to become more aware of the effective use of smoke alarms in their buildings, we would likely see decreased fire risks in apartment dwellings.

I could go on at great length about the ways and means of increasing and improving public awareness about smoke alarms but time is running short and I would like to reserve some for the end of this debate in order to make some concluding remarks. Furthermore, I believe my colleagues will address many of the points I have only been able to touch upon due to time constraints.

The purpose of this resolution is to increase public awareness about the positive effects of smoke alarm systems in all buildings. I am confident all members of this House will recognize the worthiness of this resolution and support it. In so doing, we will be fulfilling our responsibilities as members of this Legislature.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly in this debate. I am not even sure I can use the full totality of the 10 minutes as the issue is not a very complex one.

Mr. Wildman: It is all smoke and mirrors.

Mr. Boudria: The member for Algoma says, "It is all smoke and mirrors." I am not sure of the pun.

I wish we were discussing a bill instead of a resolution. I like bills much better. They seem to portray the full intention of what one intends to do far clearer than just a resolution. A resolution is merely a wish for what one wants, as opposed to being a specific law in this Legislature.

After listening to the speech from the honourable member, I am still not clear whether he is in favour of us adopting provincial legislation or whether he wants only to encourage municipalities to do this work for us. I am still not too clear on exactly what he wants with this resolution.

4:50 p.m.

I think all members would agree that all apartments, all homes, etc., should be equipped with proper alarms. As we know, it is not Just an issue of smoke alarms, there is a whole variety of equipment available. One of them is a heat sensor and that is a different issue.

I know of two different types of smoke alarms and there are possibly other types some members may speak of later. I understand one of them works on the principle of ionization. I forget what the other one does. In any case, they have different reactions depending on the type of situation in the home.

Several people have advocated that homes should have two alarms because of these different functions. Some alarms are more sensitive to a particular type of fire. There seems to be no end to where we will go with this type of thing; however, I am sure all members agree with the principle of having alarms in all buildings.

I do have one problem with the resolution and that has to do with retrofitting buildings. I personally approve of retrofitting public buildings such as hotels, motels and even apartment buildings, but I do have some difficulty when we start telling people they must retrofit their own homes for their own good. I wonder where this will stop. Are we going to get to a point where we will walk into someone's home and say. 'We do not like your toaster and think you should replace it for your own good"?

My home was built after 1976 and already had an alarm, but I have installed two more. That was my own wish. I am confident three work better than just one. One works with electricity and the other two are battery operated. One acts as a backup to the other and I think there is some merit in having the system that way.

We are starting to seriously infringe on the liberty of people when we start telling them they must change their own homes. We are not talking about the building of a new house here; we are talking about retrofitting someone's personal dwelling. We are talking about sending a government inspector in to say someone has to retrofit his own home because we think it is in that person's own best interest.

No one quarrels with the fact that smoke alarms and all other alarms are quite valuable and provide something quite significant. I fully support the general thrust of the resolution but I do think we have to be careful with that small component of the resolution that says we are going to retrofit someone's existing place. I have had similar difficulties with other laws we have passed in the Legislature in the past, including the seatbelt law, for instance.

Mr. Wildman: Did you oppose that too?

Mr. Boudria: Yes, I am opposed to it. That is only my own personal, individual view but I do not happen to like that type of law. I would have gone about it by saying seatbelts must be in public vehicles first and in individual vehicles later or not at all. However, we went the other way and that is neither here nor there now. We know that buses do not have seatbelts, yet individual automobiles do and I think we did that backwards.

So far as apartment buildings and public buildings such as hotels and motels are concerned, I am in favour of not only municipal bylaws to retrofit any existing building, but also that as a condition of someone renting a dwelling unit the building should be equipped with a smoke detector of one type or another.

I recognize it is not an expensive purchase, but we do not tell people they have to buy an appliance for their own good. The Legislature has not done that in the past and I really fear we are treading on dangerous ground when we start telling somebody, "We are going to walk into your home, declare that your home is improper because it does not have a particular electrical appliance we happen to like -- whether you like it or not -- and we are going to fine you for not having it, or force you to buy one if you do not have one, or both."

I think this kind of precedent is not right and I would encourage all honourable members to give it some thought. Perhaps there is just a bit too much civil libertarian in me when I think of those issues; nevertheless, I do believe in this kind of thing fundamentally, although I support the general principle of the resolution.

I think all members should encourage citizens to have smoke alarms. Perhaps in the constituency mailouts we send out we could include a little paragraph saying how important this kind of thing would be. There, of course, I am in full concurrence with the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) on the general principle of the resolution.

I intend to support the resolution notwithstanding the reservation I have, because I think it is certainly well-founded. However, there is this component in it that, as I said previously, I personally would be very reticent about approving as a Legislature no matter how good we think a particular idea is.

We have discussed in the past in this Legislature, and I know the member for Timiskaming has discussed with us, this business of property rights. It is unusual to see how on the one hand some of us in this Legislature, perhaps not all, are in favour of property rights, and on the other hand we are in favour of retrofitting an existing building with an electrical appliance that we think is for the good of the individual living there.

Having voiced those small reservations about that particular sentence in ballot item 7, I nevertheless want to give my general concurrence to the intent the member has, which is to encourage all individuals, not only municipalities but all people in this province, to equip themselves with this relatively inexpensive appliance, which could be a life saver for several people.

I certainly want to give my approval to any initiative that generates this kind of debate and gets people to support it. However, at the risk of repeating myself many times, I do think we have to be concerned about retrofitting an individual's private residence.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution of the member for Timiskaming, but I should say at the outset I have some problems with it and I will express them during the course of my comments.

I am going to support the resolution because I agree in principle with the sentiment that we should have smoke alarms in every residential unit in the province. I guess to that extent I disagree with the concerns expressed by the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).

Although I am going to support this resolution, I feel that to a great extent it is a cop-out, because we are trying to dump this responsibility on the municipalities, where it will happen in different fashions in each municipality and at different times and in different ways right across the province.

We have a government that is sitting right here, the member for Timiskaming is a member of that government, and we have that government in place on a number of other safety regulations in regard to residential premises in this province. For example, Ontario Hydro sets standards province-wide for the installation of electrical wiring in order to make residential premises safe, or presumably safe.

5 p.m.

Members may recall we had to commission a rather lengthy commission in this province to look into the question of aluminum wiring. Those safety responsibilities rightly fall on the provincial government to service all the residents of this province equally. That is the major fault I find with this resolution. It attempts to avoid the question of uniform safety regulations across the province.

I do not know what is behind avoiding that question, but I would prefer to see a resolution or, as the member for Prescott-Russell mentioned, more specifically a private member's bill we could discuss realistically so as to have something happen when the vote is completed at the end of this afternoon as opposed to expressing a wish only. It is a very important issue.

I have some other problems, not with the resolution as it is written, but with the things it does not include that are also important aspects of this debate. For example, the member for Timiskaming is clearly right in that, for the majority of citizens in this province, the smoke alarms he refers to in this resolution are for the most part adequate. The member for Prescott- Russell has mentioned there are different types of smoke alarms that deal with different types of fumes and/or gases from different kinds of fires, and that has to be addressed.

There are also people in this province who, through age, a physical handicap or some other problem, are perhaps not in a position fully to respond to a smoke alarm, even if they happen to hear it. For example, we have deaf people who have a problem hearing it in the first place. Then we have physically handicapped people with handicaps that do not allow them to move around quickly. Even if they do hear it, they are not in a position to respond to it.

A whole range of technologies is available. We are getting beyond the question of an internal smoke alarm for the individual home. For example, we have a nonprofit corporation that has just been formed in Hamilton because of the involvement of a couple of people in saving a couple of seniors from a fire. The seniors were unable to get out on their own. It was not because they were unable to get out that they were overcome; it was because of the physical problems they had. They were aware of the fire, but were unable to act quickly enough to get out.

This nonprofit corporation in Hamilton is currently looking for funding assistance to set up a system in the city that would provide a number of services to protect people from fires and for medical emergencies such as heart attacks or falls they are unable to respond to. There is equipment available that one can hook up to a phone which is set to dial a particular number to reach a resource centre that would have full medical information about the people with the equipment, as well as information about their ability to get around.

This equipment comes with devices you can hang around the neck so that if you are trapped in bed, you can push the button and the phone will dial out to the central number. That kind of equipment is much more expensive. It will serve people. Occasionally, we find handicapped or elderly people who have substantial incomes, but most people who fall into the categories we would be trying to help with that equipment do not have the financial wherewithal to provide it.

As a Legislature, we have to look seriously at that kind of social service in this province for the disabled, the elderly and so on. That kind of equipment is as important in providing the kind of human protection the member for Timiskaming is talking about as is the basic smoke alarm for the average healthy citizen in this province.

We also have to take a very serious look, if we are really serious about providing this kind of protection, at what kinds of alarm systems may be available -- and this is one area in which I am not specifically aware -- for those who are deaf, simply because the kinds of alarms we are talking about in this resolution do not adequately provide them with protection at all unless they happen to be living with somebody who can then assist them in recognizing that there is a fire.

That is another area we have to look at specifically. Because it would seem to me that equipment in this area is likely to be more expensive than the basic smoke alarm, we are going to have to look at providing some social assistance for those people to be in a position to install the kind of equipment that will provide them with protection equal to what the average, normal, healthy citizen in this province can get at a fairly reasonable price.

I will support the resolution because I support the basic principle that there should be protection in every household or living unit in Ontario in a major and concerted effort to provide protection to human life.

The one other issue I would like to deal with is the last item in the resolution, that insurance companies provide reduced rates to home owners who install smoke detection devices. I wholeheartedly agree that this should happen. On the other hand, the insurance industry in this country is and has been famous for ignoring logic and setting its rates at will to suit itself and not the public at large.

The insurance industry in this country has provided incentives for certain things in the past, but only in those areas that are very remotely likely to happen. They provide insurance incentives for people who will sign a pledge as abstainers. The resolution implies we are going to have smoke detectors in every home across the province, but what insurance company in its right mind is going to provide a reduction to every single resident or home owner in this province? It is not going to happen unless this government is prepared to do something to make it happen, and that is a reality we have to face as well. The last part of this resolution is a misnomer.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this resolution and to offer my support to my colleague the member for Timiskaming.

The intent of the resolution is excellent, but I do have some reservations about one part of it. I feel there are three parts to the resolution. The first is the merit of smoke detectors, and I have no problem with that. The second is the mandatory legislation pertaining to installing the devices, and I do have a problem with that. The third is the involvement of the insurance industry, and I share the concern of the member for Timiskaming in emphasizing that the insurance industry does owe more of an obligation to the community than it has provided in the past in this area.

5:10 p.m.

On the first point, I do feel that properly installed smoke detectors will help prevent a tragic loss of life. I have a couple of sad experiences I would like to relate which happened in my own community. One was just as recently as a few years ago at Christmastime, when two friends retired to their bedroom and went to sleep early. They were awakened in the middle of the night; the smoke detector had gone off and their house was on fire. The husband led the way out of the bedroom towards the exit and was able to reach the door. Unfortunately, his wife was not and was burned to death. This is an indication that the smoke detector had partly fulfilled its goal; it had saved one life but, unhappily, not the other. That was one of the unfortunate things that happened.

It is very ironic that this individual had been involved in another tragic accident relating to a fire. Several years prior to this, three little boys aged approximately four, five and six burned to death in their home. At that time we did not have smoke detectors, so there is no point in discussing whether or not they would have helped. The ironic part was that the chap who lost his wife in the fire also owned the casket company that provided the caskets for the funerals for these three little children. Then he too suffered the tragic consequences of a fire.

This reaffirms my commitment to any type of prevention in this area. I certainly support the concept that smoke detectors will save lives.

On a personal note, I might mention that last September 29 a news release was sent out on the benefits of smoke detectors, based on an Ontario Housing Corp. smoke detector survey in 1982. It said: "Ontario Housing Corp., which owns more than 84,000 rental units across the province, has been a leading advocate of smoke detectors for many years. The 1982 survey indicated that smoke detectors discovered 85 of the 179 fires in OHC units during the year. Smoke detectors were credited with probably saving lives in 47 of the fires and with reducing property damage in 97 incidents."

When I was asked to speak on this resolution, I conducted some personal research into the issue. One area I was concerned about was its social cost to society. I might mention that when I checked with one of the leading hospitals specializing in the care of burn victims, namely, the Wellesley Hospital in Toronto, I was informed that the cost of maintaining a patient in its burn unit for one day is $1,088 for all services. That is nearly $1,100 a day. Compared to that cost, the cost of smoke detectors is a very small amount.

I also contacted the fire marshal, John Bateman. Since 1976 smoke detectors have been required by the Ontario Building Code in new single-family dwellings, and a growing number of owners of older homes continue to install smoke detectors. Fire departments across Ontario confirm that lives are being saved as a result.

I would like to enter into the record one comment by Mr. Bateman: "The fire death rate in 1983 fell to 1.7 per 100,000 population. This is the first time that it has ever dropped below the level of two deaths per 100,000. It is an encouraging trend, and I would suspect that in some measure this is due to the use of smoke detectors." That is a quotation from Mr. Bateman's telephone call today.

I strongly support the thrust of the resolution, but I am concerned about the implications associated with the mandatory legislation. I agree with the concerns of my colleague the member for Prescott-Russell in the same area.

To urge municipalities to pass bylaws is one thing. How they are going to enforce them is another. If we are going to have -- I was going to say state troopers but that is maybe not quite accurate -- police or bylaw enforcement officers having to go into buildings and private homes to check to see if in reality the devices are being installed and installed accurately so they will be workable, that is one point, but it is my understanding that under section 31 of the Planning Act, the property standards bylaw, this can only be done by permission of the owner. Failing that, one has to have a search warrant.

That starts to defy the logic of private property. We are protecting people from themselves, and I am concerned about that aspect.

If it were only once in a lifetime that this would happen, it would not be so bad. But if they are installed and are not properly maintained, there is no benefit in installing them. We would have to have the same legislative bylaw officers go back constantly to check to make sure they are working.

I spoke to one of my insurance friends and asked him about that aspect of it. He said one of the problems they run into is that kids are constantly borrowing the batteries to use in their toys and radios. etc. They forget to return them, replace them or tell their parents they have taken them out. We could create a real problem.

I support the thrust of the member's resolution with that one concern about taking away the freedom of those in private dwellings. I have a great deal of difficulty with that. The thrust should be in the direction of educating the public. We should encourage the municipalities to work with their fire departments and school boards to educate young people. Surely the Solicitor General and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) could work out a program to educate our young people so they, in turn, can educate their parents on the advantages of smoke detectors.

In closing, as I have only a few minutes, I would like to touch on the third aspect of the resolution. That is the one that refers to encouraging insurance companies to provide some incentives to home owners to install smoke detectors through a rebate or some type of system. As I understand it, that was in effect but was discontinued. It is my understanding some insurance companies still provide that service.

I would like to suggest to the members of the Legislature that it might be more beneficial if, instead of criticizing the insurance companies that do not provide a premium rebate or some type of assistance to home owners who take this positive approach, we in some way support the insurance companies that do provide this social benefit to their policyholders.

We might then encourage the other insurance companies to realize it is a good idea. Perhaps they would jump on the bandwagon and also provide some incentives so that people who are taking out insurance will have some reason to go out and spend the $20 or $30 necessary to buy one unit. However, in most cases they will need two, three or four devices for a home, not one.

I hope the members support the basic thrust of the resolution with the one exception of the mandatory action.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for raising this important public issue, which comes within the jurisdiction of two levels of government, and three if the federal government could find some way of becoming involved.

Most of us in April 1984 are convinced of the value of smoke detectors. In many municipalities where there has been a lot of advertising about these detectors and where there has been some kind of public education program, there would be few homes that would not now have smoke detectors.

One of the advances we have seen in gift-giving is that many people for various reasons -- birthdays or whenever one wants to find an occasion to do so -- have chosen smoke detectors as a potential gift to give to people who do not yet have one.

In my own home I manage to make the smoke detector go off every once in a while simply by burning something in the oven or on the stove.

Mr. Nixon: You should think about getting a better cook around there.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Bradley: That happens quite often. When I do my own cooking, as I do from time to time, it is not always successful; and if I leave the kitchen, go into the living room and begin to do some reading or watch television or something, sometimes the only way I know something is not being cooked as it should be is that the smoke alarm goes off and indicates to me clearly that some action has to take place.

Mr. Stokes: It is usually too late then.

Mr. Bradley: It is too late. It is in time to save the house, in fairness to the member for Timiskaming, but too late to save the food to be consumed that evening, unless it is sausages or something I happen to like burned or well done; in that case it might work out all right.

I am pleased the member has raised the issue, because by raising it in this Legislature he has focused some more public attention on this very issue. We can quarrel, as we do from time to time in the private members' hour, with the details of a particular resolution or, when it is in the form of a bill, with certain provisions in that bill; but what is important about this is the fact that the public is once again alerted to the value of smoke detectors in saving lives.

I was listening with a good deal of interest to the member making the presentation initially when he talked about not only the lives, which we take for granted that we want to save, naturally, but also about the property damage that takes place each year.

The member and others in the House brought forward some astounding figures as to the real damage that is caused by fire if one examines that total in a year. Certainly it would continue to reduce -- because it has already had some effect -- the amount of money that insurance companies must pay out because of fires that have taken place in homes, and therefore it should have the effect of reducing premiums simply on that basis.

I am concerned about one aspect. Two previous members, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) and the member for Prescott-Russell, expressed concern about the mandatory portion as it relates to individual homes.

One cry we get in our society was put forward with respect to seatbelts. The previous member for St. Catharines made quite a stand on seatbelts. He himself refused to wear a seatbelt, or at least announced he was not going to wear a seatbelt, and he did feel at the time it was something that should not be mandatory. Most people in the province, and certainly most members of the Legislature, had a different point of view. We have saved many lives in this province, I believe, and we have saved a lot of people from serious injury by the mandatory use of seatbelts.

In this specific instance, however, I would prefer the educational method of encouraging people to install smoke detectors in their homes. There are two ways. One, of course, is education through the Ministry of Education. We think of extended education or continuing education; we think of students.

Students have an awful lot of influence. Children have an awful lot of influence on their parents with some of the things they learn at school. For instance, many parents have mentioned to me that they have quit smoking as a result of the pressure applied by the kids, who have been subjected to the very valuable information presented at school about the damage that can be done to one's body through smoking and about all the reasons for not smoking, notwithstanding the concerns of my friends who represent ridings where tobacco is produced. That has had an effect.

It is interesting to watch and to listen to parents, who say, "You know, what really changed my mind was when my seven-year-old kid came up to me and said, 'Do you know what damage you are doing to your lungs? Do you know that this is going to shorten your life?'" or things of that nature.

What I am pointing out is that young people have an influence on their parents, and through the education system we can promote the use of smoke detectors.

We can also do it through information that is provided by the government. I am not suggesting that we embark on yet another advertising campaign in which it says, "George Taylor, Solicitor General of Ontario," just before the election, and "Here is something else your Ontario government is doing." I am not indicating we should do that.

I think the provision of pamphlets to schools and in other public places, the availability of people from various sections of the government to speak on this issue, are certainly valuable in educating the public to the desirability and the essential nature of this resolution and the provision of smoke detectors.

As I was alluding, I am concerned about the mandatory aspect. Other members have mentioned that in new homes they are now mandatory through the Ontario Building Code. I am concerned about making them mandatory in older homes, albeit some of the older homes are the ones that could benefit the most from the installation of smoke detectors. I would hope people would take that initiative.

I would be concerned if we ever were to implement legislation in this province that would require a person to install yet another device in a home that is already constructed and already lived in. However, that does not mean we should not encourage those people to do so. We can do it by something else that was mentioned, I think, in the latter part of the member's resolution. That is where he suggested the insurance industry should encourage home owners to install smoke detectors by offering more attractive insurance rates to home owners who install smoke detectors on their property.

All of us who receive our notice of payment of our premium for any kind of insurance usually get some information with that. Usually the company says how nice it is being to the customer by not raising the rate higher than it already has been raised or by explaining that there is some reason those rates have been reduced. By using that advertising medium on the part of the individual insurance companies, we can certainly promote the use of smoke detectors.

The member's suggestion that insurance companies be prevailed upon to give significant reductions in their premiums and make known this policy to the policyholders is something that can be beneficial. In the past, we have seen too many lives that have been lost unnecessarily.

I am not an expert on fires. I admire those people who work in fire departments and face the crises of fire on a first-hand basis day after day. I do know from watching television, reading about it in articles in magazines and so on, that many deaths are caused not by the fire itself but by the smoke that is inhaled. I think a lot of people are still not aware that is the case.

The smoke detector is the early warning system. In our country we have radar. We have the distant early warning line, the Pinetree line and other installations which involve radar to detect an enemy that might choose to invade our country by air. Fire is an enemy of people and of property; so is smoke. What the member is suggesting is that we install that kind of equipment which is going to warn us of that intruder.

I think members of this House should support this resolution. I certainly support it with the one provision that there be removal of the mandatory aspect for homes that already exist but that there be a very strong educational program to encourage people who already have homes and do not have smoke detectors in them to get them. I recommend to my colleagues to support this enlightened resolution.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, as have all other members who have spoken on this resolution put forward by the member for Timiskaming. I do so with some very recent, unfortunate experience with fire.

As some members may know, my constituency office in Goulais River burned about three weeks ago. Although I hesitate to speculate on what the fire marshal's office report will be as to the cause of that fire, I do know that some of the volunteer firemen who fought the fire indicated that if a smoke detector had been installed by the landlord in the facility, there probably would not have been as much damage as there was.

As a person who has two smoke detectors in his own home, I regret very much that there was not a smoke detector in my constituency office. I certainly support the position taken by the member for Timiskaming.

Mr. Bradley: Did it burn all those New Democratic Party pamphlets?

Mr. Wildman: I really have some difficulty even now making light of the experience I have gone through, but I will say that as all of us, I hope, adhere to the administration regulations, I do not have partisan material in my constituency office. I suppose I should assure the members of the House that there is no evidence as far as I am aware of any vandalism with regard to that fire.

I want to talk a little about an aspect that no other member has mentioned, perhaps because no other member who has spoken in this debate, other than the member for Timiskaming, is from northern Ontario. That aspect is the unorganized areas of the north.

While I support this resolution, which deals with municipalities -- and I should point out that the largest municipality in Algoma district, the city of Sault Ste. Marie, has a bylaw that requires the installation of smoke detectors in all single-family dwellings and in apartment buildings as well as in other buildings, and I support that -- I do not have the same kinds of concerns that many other members who have spoken have raised about having a compulsory regulation about smoke detectors.

Frankly, I cannot quite understand the argument that has been raised by a number of people that somehow it is not democratic to force people to protect themselves, if the members want to put it in those terms. If we were to require smoke detectors in all buildings in Ontario -- not just in all municipalities, but in all buildings in this province -- we would be not only requiring the owners of those buildings to protect themselves but also requiring landlords to protect tenants and people who own homes to protect guests.

I just do not understand the argument against that. I have no problem with the argument of compulsion. I support the position taken by the city council of Sault Ste. Marie. I would hope that other municipalities would pass these bylaws, as the member has proposed. I would prefer to have the government move to change the Ontario Building Code to require similar protection throughout and across the province in all municipalities.

I want to return to the question of unorganized communities. Even if we did have a change under the building code which required smoke detectors in all new buildings, that should not apply to unorganized communities. Certainly the resolution as it is proposed does not deal with the problem of unorganized communities.

I know the government probably does not like to admit this, but in fact the Ontario Building Code does not apply to the unorganized communities. It is impossible to enforce it in the unorganized communities; there is nobody to do it.

People there build their homes as best they can. They get the hydro inspector to come in and inspect it, but there is no concerted attempt to ensure those houses or other buildings conform to the building code, because there is no one to enforce it. I find that very unfortunate, and I call upon the government to do something to ensure that the building code as it stands applies to unorganized communities as well as to municipalities.

When I first looked at this, I thought the way to get around the problem of the unorganized communities might be to suggest to the member that he change his resolution so that it does not just deal with and encourage municipalities but that it require the provincial government to change the building code. As I said, that does not apply to unorganized communities either.

I do not know how you would deal with the situation in unorganized communities. My riding office is in an unorganized community. I think the Ministry of Northern Affairs and the fire marshal's office under the Ministry of the Solicitor General have done a commendable job. I suppose that sounds funny coming from an opposition member, but I mean it. I think they have done a commendable job in terms of providing equipment, assistance and training to volunteer fire teams in the small, unorganized communities in northern Ontario.

Those communities were provided fire protection they never had before. Previously, they were dependent on the Ministry of Natural Resources, which has very little expertise to fight structural fires: its expertise is to fight forest fires. Oftentimes the ministry's equipment was located such a distance from the unorganized communities that when it did arrive, the building was completely gone and the people were lucky to have got out.

The Ministry of Northern Affairs has made it possible for people in those communities to obtain smoke detectors at a cut rate. I certainly support that. Unfortunately, and this is where I differ with the other members in this debate, that has not had any compulsion. There is no municipality that might require it by a bylaw. Certainly the local services board, if there is one organized, cannot do that: it has no authority to do that sort of thing. The volunteer fire teams can encourage people to get smoke detectors, but they cannot require them. I believe there has to be action by this Legislature to deal with that problem.

I support the suggestions that have been made that the insurance industry should encourage people to install smoke detectors in older homes to which the new building code did not apply and that they should do that by lowering their rates. We know that in unorganized communities where fire teams have obtained equipment and training and have located fire departments, in many cases insurance companies have lowered the rates. One of the ways in which the volunteer fire teams have been able to persuade people to contribute to the raising of funds for the volunteer fire teams has been by pointing out that they will be saving money on their insurance as well as having protection, of course.

I certainly would support a concerted effort in educating the public on the merits of smoke detectors and in ensuring that not only single-family dwellings but also, as suggested in the resolution, public buildings such as hotels and motels have appropriate smoke detectors.

My constituency office, as members might expect, is in an older motel which did not have a smoke detector. While I should perhaps declare a conflict of interest in this debate, I support the resolution as it is proposed. Frankly, though, I do not think it goes far enough. We should have a measure of control over the whole province to ensure there is some compulsion. I do not accept the arguments that have been made against compulsion.

We should be protecting the whole of the population of this province through the installation of smoke detectors in all buildings. We should not be allowing people to avoid this. The ministry and the government should be ensuring that people are assisted in installing those smoke detectors. I support the resolution, but it does not go quite far enough.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to join in the debate on this resolution today and support my colleague the member for Timiskaming, as it appears all members in the House do at this time.

There is no question that this House should encourage and support any measure that minimizes property destruction and improves life safety in the event of a fire. I am sure all members are aware of many unfortunate incidents in their own ridings where fire has caused undue destruction and even loss of life.

Earlier this month four members of a family in the city of Cambridge, in my riding, were consumed by a fire. I was talking to the fire chief this morning in preparing these remarks. He advised me he is 99 per cent sure the family would have escaped from the home had a smoke detector been functioning in the building at the time. It was a smouldering fire and he felt they could have escaped.

We all know of many incidents such as this. How many times have people said, "I wish I had installed a smoke detector"? Obviously, if more widespread use of smoke alarms can help save lives, this House should make a concentrated effort to encourage wider installation of these devices in all dwellings.

As the member for Timiskaming has pointed out, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest this is the case. Properly installed smoke alarms are effective.

In researching this issue, I was struck by the concern that a number of individuals treat smoke alarms as a nuisance rather than as a safety device. Reflecting for a moment, I can think of many individuals I know who have disconnected their smoke alarms or, as the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel has pointed out, removed the batteries for other uses. It is a sad situation that this should happen.

At lunchtime today, I was sitting in our dining room. One of our own colleagues suggested he has a smoke alarm in his house, but it is not connected at the present time. Shame, shame.

Mr. Wildman: Name him.

Mr. Barlow: As my colleague has suggested, people must be made aware of the additional safety provided by a correctly installed smoke alarm.

Mr. Boudria: Tell us who it is. We will keep it quiet.

Mr. Barlow: I am going to keep it quiet.

People are in a better position to increase public awareness if they are made aware and are educated in this real problem area. Obviously. politicians and public officials have a major role to play in a drive to increase public awareness about better fire safety and the effectiveness of smoke alarms.

The integral role people such as superintendents of apartments and property managers can play is often overlooked. People in these positions can have a major impact on fire safety and how effectively a fire is handled should it break out.

According to the Toronto superintendents' association only about one quarter of its members know and care enough about fire safety to be truly effective in protecting tenants. Without fire-conscious superintendents, high-rise apartments, even those with state of the art fire prevention systems can harbour potentially dangerous situations. To correct this, the Toronto superintendents' association has proposed mandatory courses in fire safety for all building superintendents, building managers and security staff.

I am sure members in this House will agree this is a sound recommendation that deserves our full support and encouragement. Indeed, a recommendation of this nature is included in Judge Webber's report on high-rise fire safety.

Implementing such a proposal would give apartment tenants much more assurance they are being protected from the risk of fire and they will be properly guided should a fire break out.

I think the members can concur that the superintendents should be encouraged to become a stronger link in the fire protection chain. Furthermore, they should be urged to assume a greater role in increasing tenants' awareness about effective and correctly installed smoke detectors and fire safety procedures.

If everybody does his part in helping to increase public awareness about smoke alarms and fire safety, we should start to see fewer smoke alarms disconnected because they were accidentally activated.

I agree with those members who have suggested an education program is the place to begin. We all know how effective it is for children to be handed a pamphlet at school. They take it home and the members of the family are encouraged by the kids to install a smoke alarm.

I know this has been brought up as a point today in likening it to seatbelt legislation. I started buckling up my seatbelt long before it was mandatory because my kids saw it on television and it was preached to them at school. These are the sorts of educational moves that have to be made in order to increase our awareness.

Smoke detectors are not a nuisance; they are a life saver. This afternoon, each of us on all sides of the House has addressed how different people and institutions in society can help to make fire safety a greater public priority. To this end we will achieve better fire safety only if everybody becomes more aware of it. By passing the resolution before us, we will be taking an important step in this direction.

Mr. Havrot: Mr. Speaker, because the time available is limited, I just want to thank the members on both sides of the House for the unanimous support shown for this resolution. Although some sections of the proposal do not meet with 100 per cent approval, I am extremely delighted by the fact the members across the House and on our own side have at least recognized the tremendous importance of smoke detectors.

In closing, I want to remind members that it was just 42 years ago last month that I witnessed a tragedy in which six people died. They did not burn to death, they were asphyxiated; and at that time the discussion was, "Too bad they did not have smoke detectors so those six lives could have been saved." One of them was a schoolmate of mine.

On that note I want to thank all members for their support of this resolution.

5:56 p.m.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

The House divided on Mr. Laughren's motion of resolution 6, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Copps, Di Santo, Eakins, Elston, Foulds, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Newman, Nixon, Philip, Riddell, Stokes, Wildman.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Brandt, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Gordon, Gregory, Harris, Havrot, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, McLean, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Scrivener, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson. K. R., Taylor. G. W., Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams.

Ayes 22; nays 45.

SMOKE DETECTORS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Havrot has moved resolution 7.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before we have the business statement, I wonder if we might revert to motions in order that I can make a motion concerning a committee meeting.

Agreed to.

MOTION

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the select committee on the Ombudsman be authorized to sit on the morning of Thursday, April 26, until 10 am.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the House will not sit on Monday, April 23.

On Tuesday, April 24, in the afternoon and evening, we will deal with legislation in the following order: third readings of bills in Orders and Notices, followed by committee of the whole on Bill 123; then second reading and committee of the whole, if required. on Bills 6, 11, 12, 14 and 27. If time permits, we will then go into committee of the whole on Bill 42.

On Wednesday, the usual committees may meet.

On Thursday, April 26, we will consider private members' items in the names of the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) and the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen). In the evening, we will continue any legislation not completed on Tuesday.

On Friday, April 27, we will debate the motions for adoption of the 1982 and 1983 reports of the public accounts committee and the motion to adopt the third report of the regulations committee.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have here a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1985, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. It is signed, John Black Aird; Toronto, April 18, 1984.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.